The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Kit Berry. Jeremy (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewylde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unreferenced (since 2005), in-universe page about a fictional town in a book series written by a non-notable self-published author. The article was written by an editor whose main contributions were about the author and the books. (The books are said to be published by Moongazy Publishing, which I've discovered is a company that the author herself created. [1]) A search brought up nothing to show that the series as a whole or the author are notable, let alone the fictional town the series is set in. The author's page seems to have been redirected to Stonewylde due to a lack of sources. It's borderline promotional enough to be speedied, but vague enough that I'm taking it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Correction. Her books have been picked up by Orion Publishing. However, being published by an actual publisher does not give the book series or the fictional town (which is really what the Stonewylde article is about) notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Deleteamending !vote, see below Yet another example of why we need a speedy tag for self-published books... No coverage in RS, same goes for the books, which I see are also up for AfD. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards. Nice work by Tokyo ... I missed this one ... actually, I see I only tagged it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain. I suggest retaining this article. The author is notable and has had some success. The article incorrectly attributed the Stonewylde series to the wrong publisher. The Stonewylde series is published by Gollanzc and imprint of the Orion Publishing Group. Would it be useful to add an external link to the Orion Publishing Group to improve sources? 13:3, 13/01/2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.241.9 (talk) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good call, IP195. Had I done the sensible thing and checked a publishing database myself, I would have picked up on that. I can confirm that the books are published by Orion. However, that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Unfortunately, linking to Orion's website doesn't do anything to meet the notability guidelines, since it isn't considered an independent source. For verification of details, it would suffice, but for establishment of notability independent sources are needed.

For this reason I stand by the Delete vote I placed above - there do not appear to be any independent sources covering this topic. However, I'm grateful to you for finding and pointing out the error in identifying the publisher. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment *gets can-opener, opens can of worms* Whilst Stonewylde, as a setting, doesn't appear to be notable, I think there's a case to be made that Kit Berry, currently a redirect to this article, is. She's been the subject of a number of articles (I've found four so far [2], [3], [4], [5]) from the Dorset Echo, and she was also extensively quoted in The Telegraph([6], albeit on the subject of holidays rather than books). With that in mind, the author herself might scrape past the WP:GNG, in which case this article should be a redirect to an article on her. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've heard people debate several different ways on this, but the only coverage that could really be used to show notability are the articles that focus on her as a novelist and they're all local. I've heard some say that you need more than one local paper to cover the subject and then I've heard people say that it's enough. As far as the holiday article goes, I'm not sure if that could be a source indicating notability. Wouldn't that be more of a trivial source at best since it only quotes her briefly? Not trying to be difficult, just wanting to work this out before someone does this and then finds that someone's tagged it for one thing or another due to it only really having the Dorset Echo articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

You're not being difficult at all. I tend to agree that purely local coverage doesn't grant notability (I even seem to remember a guideline on it, but I'm dammned if I can find it now), and the Telegraph piece is definitely useless for notability. For those reasons, I haven't started making any changes to try and create a Kit Berry article (might also need an admin to reverse the redirect, anyway). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all of the above astute observations, and commend Tokyo and Yunshui on approaching this in a "let's figure out the best result" approach, rather than the "let me prove myself right" approach we so often see at AfD and the like. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that this subject is notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A published book isn't automatically notable, let alone the world of a published book. Reviews from reliable sources are scant; there is a very brief one at the Financial Times, and that's about it. Needs more reliable sourcing before this can be called notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Are you kidding me? A nonexistent town in a work of fiction of questionable notability that was written by an author of questionable notability? This is like AfD Inception; non-notability within non-notability. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain After some investigation, it appears that Kit Berry has appeared in various articles about her as an author in relation to Stonewylde. These include, but are not limited to; The Times [7], The Bookseller, various UK wide high circulation off-line magazines including SFX Magazine, Yours, House Beautiful, Best Magazine, Spirit and Destiny, Western Morning News (OK... another local paper). She has also appeared on various radio stations, including BBC Radio with Judi Spiers. Additional online presence includes various book review blogs about her books and Stonewylde. And lastly, she has also undertaken extensive signings at Waterstones and other UK bookshops and events. All seems pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.21.161 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — 31.80.21.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• All of which might amount to notability for the author. This is an article about a fictional place in a book or books by that author and notability is not inerited: that is, a subject does not become notable merely by association with another subject which is. To establish notability of this subject we need sources which discuss this subject, namely this fictional milieu, in detail. Not the books they appear in, or the author who writes about it, but this subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I the only one who is surprised to find that the two SPA IPs geolocate to the same location?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Cusop said, those sources show notability for the author and if you can find enough reliable sources, I have absolutely no problem with someone undoing the redirect from the author's page and reverting that back to an article. (Here's a direct to the page: [8]) The only thing is that while the link given above did go to a search page where I see an article about the author, but when I click on the article title I get redirected to the main page. A search for the article redirected me back to the main page as well. From what I can see of the article on the author's page, it appears to be your typical "about the author" sort of post and would be best used in a page about the author. However, without an actual link, it's hard to use it as a source. We can't link to the author's page as that's a primary source and you can only use a primary source when you have multiple independent sources that back it up. In any case, the topic at hand here is about an article written about the fictional town in the series and you have to have articles talk specifically about the town in the book series rather than an article that's about the book series or about the author. For an example of what would be needed to have an article about a fictional location, check out the article for Hogwarts. You need a lot of articles to prove notability for a fictional location, not just primary sources or links about the author. The author's notability is not what is being discussed here and again, I have no problem with someone trying to do an article about the author. (I do want to state that if you write an article, the amount of signings and the locations thereof are not proof of notability, but in-depth articles that interviews the author as she's getting ready to do a signing would be.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

On the assumption that the last IP's comments about sources are correct (the Times one is paywalled, but I have a work subscription to The Bookseller so will check it and the rest on Monday), changing !vote to Delete and redirect to (as-yet-uncreated) Kit Berry. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably asking too early, but I was wondering if you'd checked the sources yet. If so and they're good, then I wouldn't mind changing my votes on the books currently up for AfD from delete to redirect to a Kit Berry entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I'm on the fence with this one. The Times article, as John explains below, could well be sufficient. The Bookseller article is basically a rehash of a Gollancz press release, so whilst convenient for WP:V, not so good for WP:N. I've been unable to find any of the other articles mentioned online; although it's clear that the IP derived this list from the author's website, where all these magazines seem to be mentioned. Without access to the article content, I can't say whether they meet the bar or not. I'm inclined to recommend that we write a Kit Berry article; it's right on the cusp, but the local coverage plus the Times equates to just scraping past WP:GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to (as-yet-uncreated) Kit Berry. The Times article is mainly about "Wicca" but has three paragraphs about Kit Berry, saying that she "has signed a six-figure book deal with a mainstream publisher for a fiction series that has already achieved cult status" and that the series is "is set in a mythical gated pagan community in Dorset known as Stonewylde." On that basis there is a good case that she is notable enough for an article, but not for this amount of in-universe detail about her invented world. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm going to go ahead and start working on a Kit Berry article, using what was at the previous redirect as a basis. I'm going to try to finish it before all of the AfD can be completed so all of them can redirect back to her article instead. I figure that we'll just have to see if the sources are enough to keep the article. I'm not sure if there are, but there's too many to completely ignore at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Redirect to Kit Berry as nominator. I'm not sure that there is enough coverage, but there's enough consensus here that we should recreate the author's article and add the sources stated here. If someone who is familiar with the information from the Times article can add the relevant information from the article to the entry, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)tokygirl79[reply]
• Will update. Have been alerted to this dialogue. I know something about the author and can add material to the Kit Berry entry, so have created a user id to do so. Meister-B(talk 09:10, 20 January 2012 (GMT) Meister-B

• Comment. Sweet! Now we just need an admin to come by and close this as a redirect to the Kit Berry entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.