Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick A. Babb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick A. Babb

Frederick A. Babb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An article on a self-published author. Fails to meet the criteria for notability set out in WP:BIO. One of the author's novels, Unforgettable, is currently the subject of an AfD. Victoriagirl 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete One of them, as the author of the article says, is published by Saga Books, which may not be a vanity press; but no claim to notability here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete An article on a self-pulished author? Is that all that is seen? Let's see...if we use that as the criteria, then Mark Twain, Louise Hay, Deepak Chopra, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Upton Sinclair, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Thomas Paine, Virginia Woolf, e.e. cummings, and Edgar Allan Poe, were all self-published authors and should be considered for deletion. The entry isn't about self-publilshing. And self-publishing doesn't always mean "not good enough for New York Publishers" Sometimes self-publishing means wanting to maintain creative control of a story. Whatever reason Frederick A. Babb publishes with who he does isn't the article. The article is about an author that has taken the steps to perserve a childhood friend that died from cancer through a touching love story and then use the book as an avenue to raise funds to fight against the very disease that killed the person dear to the author. I ask you, is that not noteworthy? If not, then maybe the notability that is looked for here for an author has nothing to do with the author's work and the author's credibility as a caring human and the notabilithy will only be measured in booksells and awards. If that is the case, then the credibility of Wikipedia would fall in my book.

(MariahJ63 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

    • Comment The fact that the subject is self-published is mentioned only in the description of the article. Self-publication is not in any way a criteria for deletion, yet is relevant when discussing an author. The AfD nomination is based solely on the argument that the subject fails to meet criteria for notability. WP:BIO provides many standards through which a subject might be considered as notable - awards are but one of many (sales aren't mentioned). While I admire Frederick A. Babb's efforts in raising funds, and MariahJ63's dedication in creating this article, I do not see that the subject presently meets any of the criteria as laid out in the guidelines. Victoriagirl 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I thank Victoriagirl for my appreciation for a cause. If I may permit from the criteria as laid out in the guidelines to make a case...Creative professionals: ...authors,..."The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." I feel the movement the author has made to raise funds and preserve the memory of someone special to him is a significant technique. From what I read about the publisher of "Unforgettable", it is a respectable POD book publisher and, if my understanding of POD publisher is correct, it means roughly that the author paid to published or self-published. So, apart from giving the royalties from the book to the American Cancer Society, the author paid himself to iniciate the fund raising. The book serves to conserve the memory of someone who was dear to him and to raise funds against a deadly disease. Isn't that significant? Thanks for the consideration.

(MariahJ63 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete for lack of any information about notability--there are no reviews, there areno sales figures, no awards, no references. .Self-publishing isnot an absolute bar, but 21st century self publishing is usually an indication that no regular publisher found it notable. Not always--I thik we found one notable a few months ago, as an exception.DGG 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This is a tough one. Here we have an author who had great intentions and an interesting story behind his story. Yet, in the world we live in, notable can be someone like Paris Hinton and Big Brother contestants who really have not done anything notable but are famous. After weighing both sides, I would say at least the author has made a positive contribution to society. My opinion. Susan Richards, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.175.118 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - per nomination. The author may have made a positive contribution to society, but this has yet to be covered in by any secondary sources - which in itself speaks to WP:V. I must disagree with MariahJ63 that in publishing a book to raise funds and keep alive the memory of a friend, Mr Babbs has originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique." The former is not at all unheard of; the latter covers work as diverse as Tennyson's In Memoriam and Boswell's Life of Johnson. Again, I recognize the author's good work and contibution to society. That said, I argue that it is not the job of an encyclopedia to confer notability. Again, as stated in the nomination, the subject fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A subject's contribution is irrelevant to this discussion unless it has influenced that subject's notability in terms of WP. In this instance, it has apparently not prompted independent sources to create non-trivial treatments. Strict application of WP:BIO and WP:V marks this as eligible for deletion. As always, if notability can be verified per the guidelines, my opinion can be revised. Adrian M. H. 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 02:26, 8 July 2007 (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.