Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Booth

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 of the debate was Delete. From a weblink given in the article [1], it appears that the subject is the author of a self-published novel. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Booth

Vanity/advertising - User created article about his book and proceeded to (external) link spam other Wikipages. Sulfur 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No spam was intended. Other links are appropriate to subject matter, but will be dropped if requested to conform with Wikipedia policy.

There is no problem with this article. It is understated; the author did not list his various professional accomplishments or reviews of his book. It is factually correct and this request for deletion should be removed immediately.

• From the article, half of which is a description of Mr. Booth's first published novel: "its story follows the mid-life crisis of protagonist Brady Greer as he seeks to establish meaning in his life by saving baseball from its various problems, including illegal drugs." Sounds like a Mary Sue. But by the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, Mr. Booth is keep-worthy if his book has an audience of 5,000 or more. Can this be shown? The only link, an online bookseller, gives no indication of sales volume or rank. User "robertbo" who created the article is encouraged to read WP's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines pages. Weak keep and expand, published author, pending further evidence of notability. Barno 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Robertbo's contribution history, in articles such as Don DeLillo, Atlanta Braves, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, lends credence to Sulfur's characterization. Barno 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only the one novel shows up on Amazon, and this article doesn't include anything that couldn't be in an article about the book itself. porges 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Having read the vanity guidelines, I can understand the objection to the link to DeLillo (despite the obvious connection betwewen his novella, "Pafko at the Wall," and Booth's "The Perfect Pafko") and I understand its removal. However, since Pafko has been a Milwaukee icon for over 50 years (and was honored there as recently as this week, prior to a Brewers/Braves game), linking the Booth book to the Milwaukee and Braves pages cannot be dismissed as mere vanity. The book's editor, Kathy Keller, has been editing novels for over 18 years and has never before seen the narrative device mentioned; that is why the book is notable...and its author has earned a first place award for editorial writing in the Society of Professional Journalist's Green Eyeshade competition. It is a serious book by a serious author. The biggest issue here seems to be my lack of contributions, as a newbie, to other pages. I get that...and, to demonstrate that I do, I will be making additional contributions elsewhere over the next few days and beyond. In the meantime, perhaps we can all turn our attention to rooting out vanity where it really exists, which is not in the Robert Booth listing.
  • Comment: Hank Aaron has been a much bigger icon in those cities than this Pafko fellow. Does that mean that if someone writes a fictional book where Aaron is a topic, we should insert external links promoting that book into every WP article involving Aaron or his teams or their cities? No. Also, please sign your comments with four ~'s. Barno 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The issue is not a lack of contributions... "newbies" are quite welcome, but the edit pattern and article does show intent. Wikipedia is not a web directory and article links should be directly related to the content at hand. Either way, it is a side issue. Beyond vanity the question posed is notability. Can "a circulation of 5,000 or more" be shown? Sulfur 18:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Sulfur: The notability page you cite weakens your position and strengthens mine. It begins by stating clearly that what follows is a “guideline” and “not Wikipedia policy,” adding that “the whole concept of notability is contentious.” You then take the reference to published authors out of context. The entire standard suggested includes those “who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.” Booth’s op-ed pieces have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Atlanta Constitution and Tampa Tribune (which has also reviewed The Perfect Pafko). All of those publications far exceed the 5,000 circulation standard. Finally, the notability page you cite suggests that those feeling a notability standard is not being met, “may wish to explain your position to the user, before nominating it for deletion.” Instead, you pounced immediately on the deletion option. Why? Is this your regular MO on Wikipedia? Would it not have been more prudent to contact me first? That would have allowed the two people who care most about this to dialogue directly on it. As a result, a person of your considerable intelligence would have seen quickly how flimsy the notability argument is and never have put this listing up for deletion consideration. Robertbo 21:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Robertbo
• Delete I have yet to see anything presented in this discussion to change my opinion that the article is vanity and non-notable. If the final outcome is "keep," then I recommend that the self publishing bookstore link is replaced with an informational link to Amazon.com. I'm sorry if Mr. Booth feels I have singled him out, but have tried very hard to not alienate a new contributor and fellow Milwaukeean. You are correct that the WP pages are guidelines and not policy... hence the nomination and discussion process taking place. Sulfur 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If the "op-ed" pieces were featured guest editorials in those major newspapers and not just letters-to-the-editor, then those citations would apparently be worth adding to the article as meeting the "audience of 5000" guideline. There might still not be a consensus to keep, but it would give editors more reason not to jump to a perhaps-hasty "not notable" conclusion. On the other hand, the facts presented here only bring the article's subject to the verge of notability, not a clear-cut case where a delete vote goes against WP's core policies. Certainly not a situation where a user ought to demand removal from this process of fact-finding, discussion, and consensus-building. Barno 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Response You both make good points. The Amazon link would be more recognizable. Also, there is nothing notable about getting letters to the editor published; anyone could do that. The articles referred to here, though, were true op-ed columns, chosen by op-ed editors in every case to be displayed in exactly the same fashion as syndicated columns running on the same page. Regarding Aaron vs. Pafko, there is no question Aaron was the better player, but the better player doesn't always make the better story. Pafko was more popular in Milwaukee. That was because he was the only original Milwaukee Brave who was a Wisconsin native and also because, as the son of small town, Slovakian immigrants, he embraced and returned the affection of Milwaukee's large Eastern European community. But the title refers more to the famous Pafko baseball card--Topps #1 in 1952--that is rarely found today in mint condition. Finally, the "Robert Booth" entry in WP will not remain a stub. "Pafko" is extremely topical, dealing directly with the steroid crisis currently gripping baseball. Lamentably, that issue will reverberate for many years...but that fact will help sustain interest in "The Perfect Pafko." The author is also now at work on his second book.Robertbo 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His book has an amazon sales rating worse than 1.3m, so I posit that it does not have sufficient readership to meet WP:BIO. I'm open to correction. Incidentally, why is it that the "it's not a policy, it's a guideline" line is only ever trotted out when such a guideline very clearly makes out that some article should be deleted...? Stifle (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2006 (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.