Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW Three Kingdoms

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 Delete both. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DW Three Kingdoms

DW Three Kingdoms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Also nominated for deletion:

The Greatest of Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A relatively new publisher whose only claim to fame is, as of now, one book, The Greatest of Heroes, which I am also nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction that managed to get (self-)published. The articles reference themselves (primary sources/original research) and a blog that gave it a passing mention about pretty pictures. In short, no claims of notability. _dk (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator. The publisher appears to have been set up by the book's author. Until they get noticed by reliable sources, these articles are not notable enought for Wikipedia. Bláthnaid 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I actually think it should be given a chance, because it is relevant to Three Kingdoms in the modern world, so could at least be merged somewhere as I think its already mentioned in a few other articles. Its how I actually found their site originally.

The main thing is its well written, but granted if has no notability then cant have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpikous (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please Keep It does need to be given a chance I hope. I respect that it lacks resources, but as the writer of the pages I would really appreciate some more time to add to the pages. The problem is that though it actually is notable, where it is in China and Australia, there isn't so much information online that you could find through google, etc.

I have received many replies from emails I sent to them at info@dw3k.com but I presume none of that information is admissible as evidence. Please know that I wrote these articles as a fan which I've become since I got an advanced copy a couple months ago which I'm now reading a third time. I have been a longstanding fan of Three Kingdoms, and know san guo yan yi very well.

If you haven't read any of the story I can only recommend it to you, or at least to read some of the free chapters on the website (especially before you dismiss it as fan fiction - because if you get a copy you will see it is serious work).

In the end I guess it will be up to the admin, and I can only request that they give this a bit of a chance, at least more than 5 days. I hope that others will contribute to the page, because even I have criticisms of the story which I am yet to add.

Thankyou to those who concern themselves with this page, and I too appreciate the care for Wikipedia, however I hope the community can give a little faith that this is actually a serious article that connects to alot of things on Wikipedia.

Lukedddd (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. _dk (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to _dk That's because you're chinese and you fully understand the name. For the vast majority of westerners who first read 'Cao Cao' they wouldn't fathom its pronounced 'T'sao T'sao', rather they always say 'Cow Cow', or what is 'Kao Kao' in chinese. Look at KOEI - they still call him 'Cow Cow' amongst all their other mispronunciations, yet KOEI is half responsible for the tens of thousands of foreigners who are now fascinated by Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Ignorance to foreigners who pay interest in chinese culture and make mistakes is no excuse to dismiss them. Your conclusion is invalid. 88.134.80.117 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If the book tries to be anything serious it would have tried to correct that assumption. I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion though, my argument for deletion still stands. _dk (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete borderline G11 spam. Combined spam for the renovelisation "With extravagant wisdom and extreme violence" of what the article calls a "notorious" series, and for an antismoking campaign. DGG (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to _dk so now you say: I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion...

but you said: I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. and that you are: ...nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction...

so buddy, you were nominating it for deletion because its really fanfiction? or you just don't like the work? I don't think either reasons are valid for deletion - only the fact the articles are new and incomplete. Why don't you show some respect and offer this up and coming thing a chance instead of trying to wipe it out in its opening hours?

Don't forget - from Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion: before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

and: # first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

-Well, these do look like good articles to me, and I hadn't heard of them either until now, but I'm interested and I appreciate them.

Caocow (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated these articles for deletion because, primarily, they failed to demonstrate notability. The notion that they are fanfiction is secondary to the nomination. The template was used on the article before, but Lukedddd removed it. I'll withhold the rest of my refutation to assume good faith. _dk (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly I'd just like to say that I agree the articles partly appear as what I found G11 to be: advertising, because I use some nice words about the book (call it what you want) and I'm sorry to make it sound biased. I really want to keep it neutral and objective, so I'm totally intending to improve this (help welcome), while still keeping things nice sounding and interesting to read.

And I think I should point out those who say delete this article, apart from _dk, I don't think know of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and that is actually what I am saying is famous/ or notorious - not this new book itself. Because of my articles' relation to the very famous ROTK I felt it was worthy enough to have its own pages (especially because I love the new book). If it was an ordinary unheard of book (that I still loved) I wouldn't have put in the effort.

Yes, I removed the tag you said _dk, sorry about that. The secondary source I just threw in their swiftly because it was the first I could find, even though I couldn't read it myself (its chinese). My aim is to satisfy proving 'notability' now, because that is what seems to be the greatest opposition here. Any help will be appreciated, but I will endeavor to find some myself.

And can I just ask - are wiki references required to link to things online, or can you refer to non-online evidence? I would have thought referring to the book itself would allow for huge amounts of writing, just like in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and related articles themselves. Lukedddd (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a general discussion of "how to write for wikipedia", but I've put a link and a few words about sources on your talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow! I must say thank you so so much :) you've really gone out of your way to help me! :) Lukedddd (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• So in this final hour I guess I should just say that I request the admin to keep the page and not delete because they could simply revert to the tags: {{unreferenced}} {{notability}} or {{primarysources}}

I am really working on these problems now, and should have the requirements within a matter of weeks or days. I never really got the chance to fulfill these requirements because _dk felt this was merely fanart and not 'notable' stuff and so put it up for deletion almost straight away.

I think he has since agreed to have good faith and let me (and hopefully others) develop the pages, so it is unnecessary to delete them because I would just replace them with appropriate ones in the very near future anyway.

Anyone who is interested please visit the TGOH talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Greatest_of_Heroes

Lukedddd (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some reliable secondary sources to prove its notability, seeing that you claim to be able to fulfil those conditions. Keep in mind that the articles can still be deleted if you fail to provide those sources. _dk (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and I know why now. Definitely my main aim now will be to provide those sources, and in the meantime I would only reduce the content in the articles. Lukedddd (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This is still a minor publisher of an obscure single work. It fails WP:COMPANY very badly. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • clarification - my call for deletion applies to both the book and the publisher. Notability is not contagious; a retelling of a notable story is not therefore in any way itself notable, and this is a classic example of non-notable: a company set up by an obscure author, to publish his own fanfiction (with cover illustration by himself). It fails in the strongest terms, and should have been speedied long since. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Obscure work. Fails WP:COMPANY at every detail.Undeath (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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.