Kristy Maloney

Deletion discussion about Jimmy threepwood

Hello, Kristy Maloney,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Jimmy threepwood should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy threepwood .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Bwcajp (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Kristy Maloney, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Kristy Maloney! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing and such

Hi! I've done some editing to the article for Jimmy Threepwood and I've removed quite a few of the links that you and another editor had added. I thought I'd explain why I did so and why they don't contribute towards notability here on Wikipedia.

Firstly, hotlinking within an article is discouraged on Wikipedia. Part of this is because it looks very awkward, but also because in the past we've had people misuse this by spamming articles with various hotlinks. If something should be included, it should be used as a source or put into the external links section. This brings me to point two.

Not every link shows notability and links used within the article should be ones that show notability. We can link to some things in the external links section such as the author's page for the series or to his posting of the trailer, but by large there's no reason to link to sites such as LiteratureWales. That website shows that he's written the books, but it doesn't show notability. Most databases don't, especially ones like IMDb where anyone can have themselves added or anyone can edit it. It might be usable as an external link, but the issue here is that there's nothing here that isn't already at the author's website. It makes this a little redundant as an external link. (WP:EL) The author's site also links to the publisher's website, so there's not a lot of reason to link to the publisher's site either. If something is easily accessible through one dominant website, it's easier to keep down the clutter by linking to that one website. I did link to the trailer, but that's because it looks like it was published by the author or someone affiliated with him. If by chance it's not put up by him or his, the link becomes unusable as an external link due to copyright issues. (WP:YOUTUBE) The big thing about most of the linking you and the other user did is that they really only showed that the book exists and were largely unnecessary to link to.

As far as notability goes, that's rather hard to show sometimes, especially with indie books. Notability is shown by way of multiple independent and reliable sources such as news articles about the books and its author, as long as the articles are about the author writing the books in question. There are two news links, which is good, but it's not exactly enough to show notability for the series to where I think it'd pass notability guidelines. As far as other websites go, anything released by the publisher, the author, or anyone affiliated with him or them in any way is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source and as such, cannot show notability. Brief mentions can be usable as WP:TRIVIAL sources, but they won't show notability. As far as blogs and whatnot go, most of these are unusable as reliable sources and aren't even really something that should be added to the article at all, not even in the EL section. This is because blog interviews, reports, and reviews are seen as a dime a dozen as far as Wikipedia's RS consensus goes. It's fairly common for any given book to get numerous book blogs to review a copy. This isn't a slight against the blogs, just that it's not really seen as a reliable source. The only exception is if you have someone that is seen as notable enough or enough of a trusted authority to where they'd be the exception. This is fairly rare, as the trusted authority is usually seen as the type of person who would be quoted in scholarly texts or news articles as an absolute authority on the subject at hand. This rules out 99% of the blogs out there, regardless of how long running they are or how savvy they might seem. In general it's best to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you have any questions. Also, if a source is primary or trivial, adding a lot of them won't show notability and are more obtrusive than helpful. We do need multiple sources to show notability, but no amount of primary or trivial sources will equal out to one reliable source.

I also want to state that if you do find that a link is unusable as a RS or is removed for various reasons, it's probably not a good idea to re-add it. Most times these were removed for a good reason, so if you have any questions it's best to take it up with the user or comment on the talk page. Once you become more familiar with the system and with what is or isn't a RS, you can re-add things, but until you reach that point it's better to discuss it with the other user and find why they removed it.

There were other things, but these were the biggies. Hope this helps explain it all a little!Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)