| Revision as of 15:52, 12 November 2008 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits →Notabillity disputed← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:04, 13 March 2024 edit undoBattyBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,935,241 editsm →top: Fixed/removed unknown WikiProject parameter(s) and general fixes per WP:Talk page layoutTag: AWB |
| (159 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Willis, Dan|1= |
|
|class=Stub |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes}} |
|
|priority= |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|UT=yes|UT-importance=Low}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons|importance=low|refs=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{notable Wikipedian|WDanWillis|Willis, Dan|editedhere=yes}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Dragonlance|class=Stub|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{D&D|class=stub|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
==Notabillity disputed== |
|
|
The notability of this author is disputed, as there are no ] to demonstrate ]. Note that directory listings are not evidence of notability. --] (]) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Um, yes there are reliable sources given, including an interview. He's published three books with a major publisher (Wizards of the Coast). Looks pretty notable to me. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::None of the sources cited are reliable - see ] for details. Fansites are not reliable, nor is the fact that he has written books for Wizards of the Coast (his employer). Directories are not reliable either - see ]. More substantial sources are required. --] (]) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not that I'm doubting the possibly weak notability, but where is it indicated that Willis is employed by Wizards of the Coast? -- ] (]) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As far as I know, no one has ever claimed he's an employee of WotC. What I did write is that he's had three books published by them (Mirrorstone is an imprint of WotC). Anyone who has had three books published mass market by a major publisher is notable enough just for that, IMO (and this used to be part of the author/writer notability before it was severely generalized and merged into the main one). |
|
|
::::As for the reliability of the various sites, the interview of Willis is a reliable source and the various reviews are reliable. With genre works like this, you have to be slightly more relaxed on what is considered a good source as even really good sellers don't always get reviewed in places like the New York Times—there are just too many books out there for that. I'm working on getting more reviews from print sources, but they are much harder to source seeing as you generally can't search them online without paying an insane amount to get access to exclusive sites. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::* When I say he is employed by Wizards of the Coast, I mean he gets a royalty cheque from them, so anything published by them, their agents or an interview with Dan Willis cannot be classed as a ], as they closely connected to Dan Willis himself and cannot be classed as independent from him. Having a book published is not necessarily notable - see ] for details. What is needed are independent third party sources that are non-trivial.--] (]) 08:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You're purposely twisting my words. Nowhere did I say that simply having published books was good enough to establish notability. I said that having three books published by a '''major publisher''' should and used to) count toward establishing notability. In addition, the interview is independent, done by a site not connected at all with Wizards of the Coast. It's definitely third party, and is considered a reliable source for Dragonlance information. So your claims of no reliable sources and lack of notability are completely false. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::*The website is a fansite, and can hardly be classed as independent from the subject matter. The interview with Dan Willis himslef is not independent of the author: it comes from the "horse's mouth" so to speak. Rather than just argue about this, lets ask for a third opinion about the evidence of notabability, of which in my view, there is none. --] (]) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The site is accepted as a good source of reliable information regarding Dragonlance, and it is independent of Wizards of the Coast. An interview doesn't (and obviously can't be) independent of the author, but it is an interview conducted by a party independent of the subject of the article. You're picking nits here trying to discount everything used in the article. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::*I am not picking nits, I am simply stating the obvious; an interview with the author himself is not an independent source. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.--] (]) 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::An interview is not an autobiography, and it can not be called self promotion unless the author requested the interview (instead of being asked if he could be interviewed). Where's your source showing he asked to be interviewed? Interviews are used as sources all the time. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::On that point you are mistaken, otherwise every author that was ever interviewed would be notable, and that just does not stand up to a common sense check. Please restore the notability (people) template. --] (]) 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that this looks very well-sourced for a stub. -] (]) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*This article does not site an ] to demontrate notability. Please restore the ] template. --] (]) 08:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Footnotes 3-6 are all reliable secondary sources, and all of them have been added since the notability tag was originally added. In addition, the notability tag has not been present since April 13th. Since the article has been edited by 4 different authors since then, and none of them thought that the tag was still needed, that would seem to be a consensus. I am changing the date of the Notability tag due to this consensus, but I think that it should be removed altogether. -] (]) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Footnotes 3-6 drawn from ], and cannot be classed as reliable at all. The fact that this article has been edited by 4 other contributors makes no difference. If you think you can add additional sources that provide evidence of ], please do so, but don't remove the tag until then please. --] (]) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*We have a book review, an Accelerated Reader list, and an interview... which of those were published by Dan Willis, Wizards of the Coast, or TSR? -] (]) 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*They are still ], so we don't know who iniated or paid for the publication on the web of these articles, I am sorry about that. --] (]) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::*I will admit that the article and references aren't perfect... maybe it would make sense to replace the notability tag with the refimprove tag? I think that the article definitely makes him look notable enough, even if the references aren't perfect. -] (]) 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I would support that as being more accurate. Gavin.collins crusade to wipe out anything to do with Dragonlance and D&D on Misplaced Pages is well known. He's nominated swaths of articles in his crusade. His is not neutral on this topic, and so his actions here are very suspect given the almost 7 months that have passed since the discussion ended in April with nary a word from him. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 19:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::*Your hositility is misplaced. What is required are ]. I have restored the notability cleanup tag. Please provide evidence of notability.<br />I am getting the feeling that one or more of you are somehow connected with the author. The new photograph is very professional, and I am becoming concerned that there may be some ]. Are either of you employed by the author, or anyone commercially connected with him? The photograph suggests to me that a publicist or some sort of publicity seeking iniative may be behind the recent additions to the article. --] (]) 09:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I agree the photo looks professional, and appears to be the only real edit of the person who uploaded it. I'm not sure where it came from, and it's not the one that was there originally. And no (as I already told you), I'm not employed by the author, nor am I employed by anyone commercially connected to him. I'm not even employed by anyone non-commercially connected to him. I've met him at a couple conventions and I took his picture at both of them. One of those pictures was the one originally used here, which has been replaced by the current professional-looking one. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 04:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::*My view is that notability of this article is established by its sources. ] (]) 09:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC). |
|
|
:::::::::::*Based on what? A few ] webpages are not enough. --] (]) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
-removed indent-I can guarentee you that there is no Conflict of Interest on my end... I haven't even read any of his books. However, I still don't understand why you are calling references 3-6 self-published. -] (]) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*In answer to your question, the web pages which cited could just as easily be put on the web by you and me; there is no peer review, or evidence of editorial control, nor any evidence that they have inclusion criteria for their articles. For all we know, these sources could have been generated by the author, his publisher, agents or someone else with a commerial interest in him: it is just not clear where they come from. --] (]) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Could that not be said for every single web reference on Misplaced Pages, meaning that hundreds of articles with well-established notability might only be using primary sources because we don't know who paid for the website? -] (]) 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Why did you attempt to archive this page? I have never seen than done before for a relatively short discussion. What is your interest in this author, exactly? --] (]) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
===Third opinion=== |
|
|
I believe that notability has been fulfilled here, though it's somewhat weak. The book is part of at least one school's list, and it's been covered in multiple sources. I would think that the existence of a Wiki project to cover this book's universe would be enough to justify one of the writers for the series to have an article. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Notability == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{RFCbio| section=RfC: Notability !! reason=There is an ongoing discussion regarding the notability of this author that needs additional input to resolve !! time=20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that the above discussion will reach a consensus without additional input. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 06:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I don't see how it could reach consensus if you do not recognise that the sources cited in the article are ]. Are you in denial or what? --] (]) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I think that a consensus has already been reached... four people have participated in the discussion saying that the notability has been established. However, Misplaced Pages discussions are not votes so it would appear additional input is needed to resolve the issue, one way or another. -] (]) 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*A hundred people can say that the sources are good, but if the sources are self-published web pages which that confer no notability whatsoever, then you would have to question what their understanding of what ] are. --] (]) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*I still don't understand why you consider those to be self-published web pages... they aren't self-published at all! -] (]) 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*Give me an example. --] (]) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
