Talk:Adrian Magson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adrian Magson article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Article Creation

This author has published 4 books over several years which are widely available in the UK.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but see WP:BIO and WP:BK criteria ... find some WP:RS independent coverage of the subject or their works ... Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 141.156.234.101 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this has been done. It's amazing how intolerant Wikipedia has become in recent years, it seems stubs are no longer acceptable, I thought the idea of wikipedia was collaborative efforts not one person writing the whole article.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:BIO

In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:Hontogaichiban (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation. IMHO, the article is better sourced than it was six weeks ago, but I still have some concerns regarding Wikipedia:Notability (books) (a.k.a. WP:BK) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the update, but does Wikipedia:Notability (books) apply as this article is about the author, actually his books have been reviewed all over the place, but surely the author is worthy, I went in to Waterstones over christmas and all his books were on an end aisle facing the main door, so I think he warrants a mention on wikipedia. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, just remember that popularity is not the same thing as notability ... if enough of their books are notable (i.e., have met the WP:BK criteria for inclusion), then their author meets WP:BIO ... an author who has written over 200 books, none of which have been worthy of mention in The New York Times, The Herald, or even a notable local WP:RS publication, is NOT notable (note that reviews on websites that require registration to read, like some NYT reviews, are not eligible per WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided.) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On a separate note ...

On a separate note, just out of scientific interest, I am a bit surprised that this article has attracted so many comments and attempts to delete it, I've been editing wikipedia for a few years on and off and I've never ever come across this kind of barrage before - I'm not saying its necessarily a bad thing, just I wonder why this article has been singled out, any ideas? Is there a predominance of wanna-be novel writers on wikipedia who take a special interest in novel writers and therefore put articles relating to writers and books under special scrutiny? Just a hypothesis. BTW in case you were wondering I am not this guy and I don't have any affiliation at all.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's kind of the same note ... I've personally encountered several WP:COI situations of an editor creating an article about themselves, one about their book, and another about their overseas publisher, all in an attempt to bootstrap notability (the book has an article, and the publisher has an article, so the author must be notable; Q.E.D.)
My sole interest is that I see an article without reliable sources to WP:Verify claims of notability, so I flag it and keep it on my radar for a few weeks ... because my IP changes every few weeks, it may look as if more than one editor has been making disparaging comments, but it's the same user on different occasions ... I first noticed it on 2007-11-29 as 141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs), did some WikiGnome cosmetics to it on 2007-12-08, and haven't touched it since a month ago ... Some Other Editor did something to this article the other day, which pinged me, and I came back to re-assess it ... it still looks unencyclopedic to me ... I mean, can we please get some minumal WP:BLP stuff, like Date of birth (living people) and Place of birth (living people)? ... that's the kind of stuff you find in WP:RS independent sources, which this article totally lacks ... if you can't even find out when and where they were born, just how "notable" are they???
And yes, because of the "unreliability" issues associated with Wikipedia article, the community has become more sensitive to Attribution, and WP:consensus has changed as to what is acceptable ... also, a "HANG ON!" during the first week after an article's creation is NOT the same thing as coming back six months later and there still are no independent source citations for the subject ... last Autumn's Keep can easily become this Spring's Delete because what's tolerated during the first fortnight is not acceptable a few months later ... "I'm here to explain it, not to defend it!". :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other deletions

User:Hontogaichiban ... I call your attention to these articles:

The first two are currently at AfD, the third has been PRODed ... as Some Other Editor commented at WP:AfD/Elle Travis:

  • Delete According to Wikipedia:Generally notable people we would expect to see, for Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
I couldn't find evidence that she had a significant role in even a single notable film. Since her credits as listed in the article include so many minor items it is hard to filter out what might be important. Her lack of mention in the web-findable credit list for Dead Air makes it difficult to consider that one seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These are examples of articles that seem to indicate popularity (subjective), which is not the same thing as notability (objective) ... that this one survived an AfD because it was so soon after creation does not mean that it would survive one today, because it is still lacking WP:RS coverage of the subject ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair points, I have noticed Wikipedia has improved in quality somewhat. And while obviously no comment here by me is going to alter any WP policies, I can't help feeling that the criteria is slightly too harsh, although I do accept the need to screen out self promoters with vanity pages, of which I have seen a few in the past. If only I was the author I would know the date of birth, I'll see what I can find. To be honest though my interest in this article is really more because of your challenge (I am obviously out of touch with wikipedia) than a passion to keep any given article, created by me or not, alive. Perhaps some kind of objective rule should be invented as to when an author is notable, maybe a balance between sales and people referencing their work, with a time factor built in. I also think it's a shame that an article could be created about something and then be deleted, more or less forever, it's a bit like burning books IMHO. Still my final word on all this for now is that if I pick up a book from the book chart in a bookshop, I would hope to find something about the author on Wikipedia - it's annoying when they are missing, which is exactly why I started off this page. It's just my opinion, I don't mind being outvoted in the end, especially if it is the result of democratically evolved wikipedia policies.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice the policy you refer to above WP BLP, actually recommends caution in posting a date of birth for security reasons.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pushing the envelope

I have been using this article as a gauge of current consensus regarding notability ... I have also been using it to test my Deletion warning protocol for the Biographies guideline (WP:BIO), and the templates I have created to use on article and editor talk pages ... the 2nd Step of Warn-bio references John Q. Public as an example of good WP:ATTRIBUTION (albeit Totally Bogus) ... it "indicates" the notability of the subject such that it does not qualify for a A7 speedy deletion, so most casual editors would not attempt to tag it as such, and most admins would decline one anyway (assuming it were factual).

To echo the sentiments of Some Other Editor, I have little interest in whether or not this specific article remains or is deleted ... however, I do feel a commitment to enhancing the impression that "Wikipedia has improved in quality somewhat", and I feel that a cornerstone of that quality has to do with minimum criteria of notability based on reliable source (verifiable) attribution ... in some ways, we're making this up as we go along, and attempting to keep the bureaucracy and "set in stone" rules to a minimum, but some editors feel, "If there's not enough already published about the subject beyond a list of their books, then they are not notable enough for an article here."

My concern is the "gray area" of notability, and attempting to either establish it quickly, or else delete the article until the subject is notable ... sometimes, we're a little Too Hasty in deleting an article, and more often than not, feelings are hurt, and potentially valuable contributors are lost in the process ... since my background is in software systems engineering, I feel that my contributions to making Wikipedia better are by helping the process by which it is created, rather than its content ... in other words, modifying and making useful templates that help improve the quality is more my forte than contributing to articles ... in a way, I "face the challenge" from both sides at the same time. :-)

I am considering a Warn-lacking template specifically for WP:BIO, and would like some feedback ... I'll be making changes to it intermittently ... I have started this new section to invite other editors to try to either, (a) improve this article, or else (b) delete it.

Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a system, where pages go through alpha and beta stages which are only viewable optionally and a page doesn't go live to the casual viewer until it's reached a certain stage. Just a thought. BTW have you noticed that if you try to edit a section of this discussion page by clicking on one of the edit buttons on the right of each section it is currently failing or giving the wrong section, I had to edit the whole page to write this?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)