Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert F. Smallwood

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 Keep weakly, because he's notable for having not become so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert F. Smallwood

Robert F. Smallwood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Writer whose books are all out from notorious vanity press BookSurge. Each of the books fails WP:BK. I can't find major reviews on any of them to satisfy WP:RS. Neither can I find evidence of the "19-city book tour and interviews" that the article asserts. What we appear to have here is promotion from a WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak-delete as the nominator says it is not very reliable, but I can find references. See this: http://www.lulu.com/content/1678680. Dreamafter (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LuLu doesn't count, since it's just another vanity press, failing WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete No references. Doesn't appear a very notable person. However, the nominator should let User:Rexbacchus know his article is being considered for deletion. Fixed that! —Artene50 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Artene50 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I've attempted to find third-party sources (book reviews, etc.), but have found nothing of apparent relevance in Google News. Jakew (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I've had a look around, and found a few sources (which I added) that might help to establish notability (part of the problem is that most of the hits were found under "Robert Smallwood" rather than "Robert F. Smallwood"), but I'm inclined to say that they aren't enough on their own. Smallwood has mostly been in the media for two reasons. The first is that his book was the first personal account of Katrina to be published. This gave him mentions in a number of international papers, including the Washington Post and a full article in The Sun Herald. The second was the Black and White Ball that he organized, which was picked up by The Associated Press, and reported fairly widely as a result. Other claims, such as "published 100's of tech articles" I can only find support for in press releases, which may be accurate but, even if acceptable, don't speak to notability (assuming good faith, though, I expect the claim to be true, but I need more information to evaluate the claim's worth). Given that he has had some mention in significant newspapers, and that the Sun Herald piece is quite long, I would normally regard him as borderline. However, in this case I'm placing him on the wrong side of the border, as most of his coverage seemed to be because he wrote a book, rather than because of the quality of the book. I haven't found any significant reviews of his work (a few one or two line comments, but nothing better), and I would have expected to if he was to be a good fit for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I doubt that I exhausted all the sources, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if more reviews or other materials can be found. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The articles on KMWorld are enough to move me to the other side of the border. :) No single thing that he's done seems sufficiently notable in itself, but I'm happy to accept that the combination of things (some success with the Katrina book, previous tech writing, and so on) are just enough in combination. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not yet an expert on how to insert references but did find evidence of Smallwood's national book tour on these sites: http://www.pressreleasespider.com/feed22935.aspx

San Francisco and San Jose book signings

http://ww.sfbg.com/entry.php?catid=110&entry_id=1390 San Francisco book signing

http://audio.tpr.org/texasmatters.xml August 18, 2006 San Antonio book signing

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-05-23/events-lists.php http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-04-18/events-lists.php

New Orleans book signings

Also, I located Smallwood quotes in the Russian Pravda and Times of India sites, as well as an image of him on BBC.co.uk

An article in OneIndia which includes different Smallwood quotes:

http://living.oneindia.in/insync/morocco-traditions-181206.html

And AlterNet, which is still another interview:

http://www.alternet.org/story/48130/

And more quotes on a Huffington Post blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-templeton/mardi-gras-in-the-murder-_b_41423.html

Can someone please verify and post these references?

In addition, Smallwood's book was mentioned in last year's "The Simpson's Movie" during the book club meeting when the residents were trapped in a giant dome--probably the work of Harry Shearer, a part-time New Orleans resident who does several voices on the show.

Regarding Smallwood's claim of publishing "over 100 articles" in tech magazines, one can do some verification by going to http://www.kmworld.com, http://www.imergeconsult.com and also to the sites of magazines like e-Content, Document Magazine and Reseller Management, although some of Smallwood's articles were published in now defunct magazines like Imaging Business, Imaging World, IMC Journal, Document Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexbacchus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Booksurge, it is the publishing arm of Amazon.com; Smallwood's Katrina book was also published through Ingram, the largest US book distributor, and made available to major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders, and Waterstone's in the UK.--Rexbacchus (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have any problem with the vanity press issue. I generally feel better about authors who go through "traditional" publishers, but PoD doesn't deny notability. It simply doesn't indicate it. That aside, your links above are good, and thanks heaps for providing them, but they aren't quite what I need - I can see that he is mentioned as an author, and is very occasionally quoted in the press in regard to Katrina, but what I'm hoping for is a review or two about his books. But I can see it going either way with others, so hopefully consensus will be for keep. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Blogs are inadequate, and this is a vanity-press writer. Please read WP:RS and WP:BK. Blogs do not constitute reliable sourcing for WP purposes. It really doesn't matter how many times this guy gets himself mentioned on the Internet. And BookSurge is a vanity press; it accepts payment from authors for "publication." Amazon does not have a "publishing arm"--they have a vanity-press service, and in fact they raised a huge stink lately because they are trying to replace all of the other vanity presses on Amazon with their own vanity press, BookSurge. You are also wrong in stating that Ingram is a publisher. They are nothing more than a distributor, albeit the largest one in the country, but they do not publish books, and any vanity-press book can be ordered through Ingram, just as any vanity-press book can be listed on Amazon or "made available to major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders." None of this means anything. There is no notability here at all. Smallwood opened his checkbook and paid for publication, then he got his book listed on Amazon and BN and Ingram, then he got himself mentioned on a bunch of blogs. These are things that any person in the world can do. Also, a writer does not become notable per WP guidelines just for going around to a few bookstores and signing a few books. There is nothing at all significant about any of these things. They are not at all the same thing as being published by a legitimate press, being paid an advance, and being reviewed in the large and legitimate venues. This entire article is a put-on, on the borderline of WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Above comments are biased and uninformed since yes, Ingram is a distributor and it owns a print-on-demand (POD) publisher, Lightning Source, Inc. That Smallwood's publisher used POD is smart inventory management and POD is a perfectly legitimate (and efficient) way of filling book orders without the cost of warehousing and double-shipping, as validated by the investments of Amazon, Ingram, Random House (Xlibris) and other leading publishers and distributors. The way a book is printed does not determine its legitimacy. Booksurge and lulu.com both pay royalties; a "vanity press" simply prints books for a price. Further, Smallwood interviews have not only appeared in publications on at least four continents, but he also was notable enough to nationally appear on C-SPAN2's BookTV along with notable writers like Douglas Brinkley, (in addition to local TV appearances in San Francisco, San Jose, San Antonio, New Orleans, Biloxi). Also, one should look at what Smallwood has done and consider that he is probably the only author ever to publish four books in four distinct forms and genres (nonfiction novel, play, nonfiction technical text, novel) in less than three years. One other thing of note: His Katrina book is being used as a text in a college course (in Oregon). --Rexbacchus (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again, there is no notability here. Anybody can pay to have a book printed through Lightning Source. If Smallwood has books out from Lightning Source, it's because he paid Lightning Source to print them. If he has books out from BookSurge, it's because he paid BookSurge. If he has books out from LuLu, it's because he paid LuLu. This is the definition of a vanity-press writer. In addition, if he bought copies from any of these entities and then showed up at a bookstore with those copies to sign them, then he is a vanity-press writer twice over, because it means he paid for the copies twice: once when he made the arrangement for publication through the vanity press, and then the second time when he purchased books from them for his own use. His "royalties" therefore come out of his own funds, the money he paid to buy copies of his own books! Please read WP:SPS to see what Wikipedia thinks about vanity and self-published sources. As for the other assertions, that he's been on television etc., there is no WP:RS at this point to back any of that up. And it doesn't matter that he published a "nonfiction novel, play, nonfiction technical text, novel" all at the same time, since vanity presses like Lightning Source and BookSurge and Lulu are happy to print up tons of different stuff, so long as the writer is willing to pay. They take all comers. And that's what Smallwood is, just another guy with an open checkbook who's going around paying for all of this, pretending to be a legitimate author. And now this article pops up on Wikipedia, produced and defended solely by the same WP:single-purpose account, with all of this scanty and non-legitimate sourcing, without any WP:V. Any human being on the planet could do all of the things Smallwood has done, including having a party in New Orleans--I bet there are plenty of parties going on there right now! Since any person in the world can do all this stuff, none of it justifies notability for an article. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. At [1], in a comment dated July 9, 2007, Smallwood identifies himself as RexBacchus. So now we must add WP:AUTO and WP:COI to the many problems with this article. The post also admits that The Five People You Meet in Hell: Surviving Katrina, Prisoners of Katrin and Brando, Tennessee & Me were all initially published by "Bacchus Books of New Orleans." So this proves that he self-published these books before vanity publishing them. Qworty (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, Uninformed AssertionsThe above comments are made by someone who does not understand how publishing TODAY works, and they obviously have an ax to grind, so they are probably an unpublished wannabe, or an agent who stands to lose from the changes technology is bringing to the publishing world. To wit: 1) Both Lightning Source and lulu print and distribute books and pay royalties on books sold--the same as Simon & Shuster, Random House, etc. One does not pay for books to be printed and then somehow sell them to stores one at a time; book stores and libraries ONLY buy books from Ingram and Baker & Taylor unless an author is local--so Smallwood could not buy books and then bring them to book signings; 2) Smallwood's appearance on C-SPAN sponsored by the Press Club of New Orleans is duly documented when searching Google--as are interviews on local TV stations in CA, TX, LA, MS, as well as Texas Public Radio, Louisiana Public Radio and other stations; 3) His work with Habitat for Humanity to create the Capote Black & White Ball benefit was notable enough for both AP and Reuters to carry the story worldwide; 4) If any human being on the planet could publish four books in four forms/genres in three years--after suffering the tragedy, chaos and displacement of Hurricane Katrina--and receive international press coverage, and book reviews from notables like Andrei Codrescu and Rex Reed, then why hasn't anyone else done it?--Rexbacchus (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Despite the uncivil conflict between the author and the jihadist, the national press coverage Smallwood received for his work in promoting reconstructon of New Orleans proves notability. The sideshow over alleged vanity publishing isn't relevant to notability. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to the topic being the subject of multiple secondary and very reliable sources, the core criterion of both WP:N and WP:BIO. As the previous editor said, allegedly being published by a "vanity" press is a red herring and irrelevant to the person passing our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete simply not notable. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the basis of the articles in the press discussing his unsuccessful attempt to be an author. Even the Katrina book seems to have been actually purchased by only 47 libraries--given the subject, that's a ridiculously low figure. DGG (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep I don't know if User Rexbachus who created this article is just a fan of Smallwood's work or a close friend of Smallwood in which case this would be a conflict of interest. However, when Qworthy nominated this article for deletion, he should have told Rexbacchus about his actions. It does not sound right that I (as a third party) had to tell Rexbacchus about the nomination instead. On the topic of Robert F. Smallwood, I found 43 references to him here He has published some books but seems relatively minor. But...he may be notable as a person who experienced and wrote about the Katrina disaster. Also, roughly the first 10 of the books on this Amazon list appear to be written by him: [2] Therefore, I have decided to change my vote from Delete to Weak keep. I am slightly more convinced of his WP:N now. Artene50 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hi - Just to correct one point in the above post, the "Robert Smallwood" who wrote the Shakespeare books is a different chap. (I ran into the same problem - when you do a search, most of the hits are for the Shakespearean scholar, which I needed to weed out). As a result, only two of the books in that list are by him. - Bilby (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your clarification Bilby. With this new information, Robert F. Smalwood becomes a rather more borderline case. His WP:N is less certain. The issue the Wikipedia moderator must deal with is whether his book on Surviving Katrina here and the other on Brando merits notability. As for me, I have nothing more to say. If I had a vote, it would be No opinion. Artene50 (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable per WP:BIO --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, secondary coverage in reliable news sources, so meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 1 June 2008 (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.