Talk:Abbey Series/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Deletion
I see this article has been proposed for deletion. The person who did so was well within his right to do so, but if I may, I'd like to refute his points, as the writer of this article. On the first note, yes, the subject of the article has less than one thousand hits on Google. But that's hardly surprising, given the nature of the subject—Relatively obscure children's book series tend to not crop up on the internet terribly often.
Secondly, yes, one of the cited sources is a Geocities page, simply because that's where I initially found out about the subject. However, the author of said Geocities page is Jess Nevins, a published author and recognised expert in this field.[1] As such, it deserves more consideration than your average Geocities page would. Note also that the other source is a print one, which one would think would be suitable. Granted, it is out of print and the publisher is fairly obscure; to counteract that, I provided a link to the publisher's page on the book. Here is a review of the book, as well.
In closing, I am troubled by this article's being proposed for deletion; it was a fairly popular series of 40 published books in Britain, and as far as I can tell meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines quite well, even exceeding them in certain ways. I will not remove the tag myself because I wrote the article, and as such I believe that to be a conflict of interest, but I hope to discuss this issue and ultimately come up with a solution.--SB | T 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cite a source proving somehow that they're popular, and take off the prod tag. Your current new sources might be enough; if you think they are, just take the tag off and I won't complain. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's only proposed for a reason ;). Largely, its to see if the article can be salvaged, sort of egging the editors into fixing it up. Hence the template says that you can remove the tag if you correct the problems. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I understand that. But I can't correct the problems. One of the sources will continue to be a Geocities page, and the Google hits will remain low. If you thought there was some problem with the article, I think it would be better to tag it in some way describing the issue (cleanup, grammar, whatever) or even better, fix it yourself. If I write something and someone else wants it deleted, then, as far as I'm concerned, my job is to either accept defeat or convince that person that they are incorrect. So, I'm asking you to remove the deletion tag yourself. For what it's worth, here are two fansites [2] [3], the latter of which is in fact the website of the "Elsie J. Oxenham Appreciation Society" which boasts of a membership of 400(!).--SB | T 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- 400 is peanuts, but I'm still dropping the prod tag. Like I said, the extra links you added (the External Links) weren't there when I prodded it. They seem o.k., I'm not going to pursue deletion.-- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Err, edit conflict and was beaten to removing it. :O -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- 400 is peanuts, but I'm still dropping the prod tag. Like I said, the extra links you added (the External Links) weren't there when I prodded it. They seem o.k., I'm not going to pursue deletion.-- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I understand that. But I can't correct the problems. One of the sources will continue to be a Geocities page, and the Google hits will remain low. If you thought there was some problem with the article, I think it would be better to tag it in some way describing the issue (cleanup, grammar, whatever) or even better, fix it yourself. If I write something and someone else wants it deleted, then, as far as I'm concerned, my job is to either accept defeat or convince that person that they are incorrect. So, I'm asking you to remove the deletion tag yourself. For what it's worth, here are two fansites [2] [3], the latter of which is in fact the website of the "Elsie J. Oxenham Appreciation Society" which boasts of a membership of 400(!).--SB | T 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's only proposed for a reason ;). Largely, its to see if the article can be salvaged, sort of egging the editors into fixing it up. Hence the template says that you can remove the tag if you correct the problems. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rollback
Darn thing is too effective, I apologise I was inspecting the history when seeing Sean's comments on Consumed Crustacean's RfA and hit the rollback rather than the next edit link. My bad - GIen 10:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Extra Information added
I have added more references [and a page on the author] as well as more information on the book and the series it belongs to. Trust this has enabled it to stay firmly in the Wiki stable ... the author is considered highly collectable in UK and Australia, and the 700-plus of the combined Oz and UK fan club membership is the tip of the collecting iceberg--Abbeybufo 20:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- moved my comment to end as have just seen in talk page guidelines it shouln't have been added at the top - sorry - --Abbeybufo 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)