I have edited the following email to me to obscure the author's identity, changing or omitting identifying details. My point is not about this author but about what I perceive as a sickness in the process. I should note that I get at least one email of this type daily.
This email is in two parts. The first part is the example, but if you don't need an example to convince you that there's a problem, then please skip to the analysis part, which is probably more important and something we should discuss in detail.
1. THE EXAMPLE
I am an American author. None of my novels are vanity books. I have been published outside of the USA as well as within, by <FAMOUS PUBLISHER> in Italy and Methuen in Britain. One of your deleters has questioned my authenticity, which I resent.
I have had over a million books published over the years. In Fantasy, mystery, science fiction, adventure, historical, and non fiction. I am a former employe of The New York Times, as well as a former editor-in-chief of <Fancy Magazine>, a quarterly full color magazine for members of <a famous organization>. I am a member of the New York Newspaper Guild. I also teach creative writing, and have lectured widely for libraries in NY and California.
I am bi coastal sharing my time in New York and California.
I would like my entry corrected.
It took me all of 2 minutes to confirm that: (a) All of the things this author says are true (b) He's actually being modest about his accomplishments (c) our VfD page is ludicrous
The nominator raises the possibility that the presses of his books are vanity presses. A quick check shows presses such as Fawcett and Playboy Paperbacks, neither of which (obviously) are vanity presses.
2. THE ANALYSIS
I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article.
In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here.
Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?"
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
--Jimbo
On 1/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article.
In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here.
Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?"
I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first.
I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
--Jimbo _______________________________________________
Here's an idea.
Why not add a template to the article/category/whatever talk's page. Stating that a discussion about this article is warranted, for whatever reason (notability, bad category and so forth). So that a category is created with all those articles and people can have a say on it on the article's talk page. If after a month or so of discussion people still agree that it should be deleted, then it can go to AFD/CFD etc.
Of course, no '''Delete'''' 's or ''''Keep'''' 's should be on that article's talk page.
Garion
On 1/20/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an idea.
Why not add a template to the article/category/whatever talk's page. Stating that a discussion about this article is warranted, for whatever reason (notability, bad category and so forth). So that a category is created with all those articles and people can have a say on it on the article's talk page. If after a month or so of discussion people still agree that it should be deleted, then it can go to AFD/CFD etc.
Of course, no '''Delete'''' 's or ''''Keep'''' 's should be on that article's talk page.
Garion
Hmm, clicked on the wrong button. Wanted to discard that message after I checked wikipedia deletions and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Brainstorming#Decentr... and other idea's there.
Garion
On 1/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
I've had three companies pop up on my radar recently. Two I've already written about in Pointless deletions. Another has shown up on deletion review where there is all kind of petty quibbling over a company that on its website gives actual case studies--which I've no reason to doubt are accurate and are in any case verfiable--involving really major customers such as Camden Borough Council, BP Upstream and so on. There is some discussion but it seems mostly to be along the lines of "well it doesn't meet [NAME OF STRINGENT GUIDELINE] so it was a valid deletion." Why are we deleting stuff like this for such pusilanimous reasons?
On 20 Jan 2006, at 21:32, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've had three companies pop up on my radar recently. Two I've already written about in Pointless deletions. Another has shown up on deletion review where there is all kind of petty quibbling over a company that on its website gives actual case studies--which I've no reason to doubt are accurate and are in any case verfiable--involving really major customers such as Camden Borough Council, BP Upstream and so on. There is some discussion but it seems mostly to be along the lines of "well it doesn't meet [NAME OF STRINGENT GUIDELINE] so it was a valid deletion." Why are we deleting stuff like this for such pusilanimous reasons?
Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an entry on wikipedia. Accurate and verifiable it may be. We are not a collection of random facts.
Many of my friends and their companies have worked for Camden. It doesnt matter. They should not have entries.
Justinc
On 1/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an entry on wikipedia.
Now this is precisely the kind of statement that I find problematic on Wikipedia. Camden is a major London borough--the NHS trust and the British multinational oil company BP, who are also customers who have used this company's product for major operations involving decisions on the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, are also major concerns. That this company produces a product that was entrusted by all three (and these three chosen at random from a dozen or so) counts for rather a lot. It is not to be written off by facile, thoughtless statements such as the above.
On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 1/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an entry on wikipedia.
Now this is precisely the kind of statement that I find problematic on Wikipedia. Camden is a major London borough--the NHS trust and the British multinational oil company BP, who are also customers who have used this company's product for major operations involving decisions on the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, are also major concerns. That this company produces a product that was entrusted by all three (and these three chosen at random from a dozen or so) counts for rather a lot. It is not to be written off by facile, thoughtless statements such as the above.
Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of notability. Once you add "hundereds of millions of pounds", add that these were only a few of the customers.
Typical example of the article that as a stub doesnt appear notable but when expanded seems obviously reasonable.
Maybe an {{inprogress}} tag would be usefulo for people making stubs that they want to do bit by bit.
Justinc
On 1/21/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of notability.
Well in my earlier email I did also mention BP Upstream. They used the product, as an experiment, to manage the bid processs for the Claire Oilfield. Of course this kind of thing gets expanded piecemeal, but only because I seem to be encountering, at every single step of the way, people who aren't prepared to do any research,and so must be spoon-fed information to stop them veering off into a deletion proposal justified by their ignorance and failure to investigate.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 12:35:17AM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 00:24, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 1/20/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Working for Camden Council does not mean your company deserves an entry on wikipedia.
Now this is precisely the kind of statement that I find problematic on Wikipedia. Camden is a major London borough--the NHS trust and the British multinational oil company BP, who are also customers who have used this company's product for major operations involving decisions on the commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, are also major concerns. That this company produces a product that was entrusted by all three (and these three chosen at random from a dozen or so) counts for rather a lot. It is not to be written off by facile, thoughtless statements such as the above.
Ah you have expanded the detail, made more of a justification of notability. Once you add "hundereds of millions of pounds", add that these were only a few of the customers.
Typical example of the article that as a stub doesnt appear notable but when expanded seems obviously reasonable.
Maybe an {{inprogress}} tag would be usefulo for people making stubs that they want to do bit by bit.
That does seem a good idea.
I've been on this list ofr a few days but this is my first post.
Brian [[User:Bduke]]
Justinc