Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:31, 25 June 2019

Nathan Dylan Goodwin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no coverage of this writer or his work, even in the usual suspects like PW and Kirkus. The only reviews I've found are amazon and goodreads, neither of which add any value to determining notability. I don't know if it's too soon but he currently fails GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

I can also find no source to support the lead which states that his series is "acclaimed". Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does say his books are acclaimed "in the world of genealogy", and that is probably true. I've certainly read reviews of his books in the newsletter of a genealogy website I subscribe to. That newsletter, and similar ones, and genealogy blogs, would not count as reliable sources, though, so the question would be whether published magazines, for example, have written reviews or profiles of him. I see there's a link to an interview published in Family Tree Magazine, which would not meet the requirement for being independent ...... I will see what I can find, though possibly this is going to be a case of someone well known in a particular field, who doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are all his external social media links listed? I'n not going to delete them but if the page stays, they should go MaskedSinger (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've deleted a few external links, unnecessary italicising and a wiki link. I note that there is WP:CoI - the info box names his spouse as Robert John Bristow, and the creator of the article is Rjbristow. In terms of sources, the most I've found so far (apart from reviews in blogs) are reviews in genealogy society newsletters: The Livermore Roots Tracer Vol 38, No 3, August 2018, p 7 [1]; the Boulder Genealogical Society Quarterly 2015 Edition, Vol 47, No 3, August 2015, p 56 [2]; and on a website called Genealogy Magazine [3]. It's not looking like enough for either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, so far. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello all - I am pleased to work with your discussion to improve the page so that it does not get deleted. This is the first page that I have created and I am a little crestfallen to find that I have not correctly done it, as it is done in good faith. Yes, I am his husband, but this is because I am the other half of the company set up to promote, market, distribute and maintain his public profile (in place of an agency or publishing firm). I will take any action to remain within wikipedia policy, where I have fallen short. I will monitor comments here and improve the page to avoid deletion. With regard to the WP:COI, I noted the guidance but kept the post strictly to advocacy comments - you will note that opinions are given in interviews and not by me. I am creating this page 'professionally' impartially as CEO of The Novel Guys Ltd. but explicitly noted my relationship to the subject in the information box RobertJBristow (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2019 (BST)

Hi, RobertJBristow. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the kind of coverage that Wikipedia requires for someone to be considered notable in Wikipedia terms. There are various notability guidelines - I referred to two above, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Both require writing by others in independent, reliable sources, either about the subject or about the subject's books. That's what I'm unfortunately not seeing - most reviews of the books are on blogs, e-commerce or user-generated websites like Goodreads, and they are not considered reliable. Interviews with the subject are not considered independent, whereas articles about a subject can be. Sources do not have to be online (nor in English), so if you know of published reviews in independent, reliable print sources, please add citations to them. If not enough sources can be found, the article may well be deleted - that does not reflect in any way on any subject, it just means that the current very specific Wikipedia policies aren't met. That could change in the future, eg if more sources meeting Wikipedia's requirements are published or found. Hope that helps. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rebecca talk. I have spent today building up reliable sources and notable links and references. I have addressed the GNG and Author guidance policies. I have included refs and articles about the subject now instead of only 'with'. How do I know if I have done enough to prevent its being deleted? Will I have the chance to 'rescue'/save my work? It has been interesting to learn all this and I do not want to waste my efforts. I do appreciate the constructive feedback, though, so, thank you for any help. RobertJBristow (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2019 (BST)

I'm doing some reformatting at the moment, so don't worry if it changes. It's not necessary to reference books to themselves - the ISBNs can be added alone, and then the reviews can be added as references. I'll do what I can now, which may give you an idea of how it might be better to show the references - I'll try to do more later too, if it's confusing.

As for what happens now - this Article for Deletion discussion will remain open for other editors to comment on, and vote Keep or Delete, for at least one week from the time it was first listed. It may be relisted if there is no clear consensus. If the decision is to delete it, you can ask for it to be moved back to your user space. But there are several days to go before any decision. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the work of RebeccaGreen the article still retains the sort of COI induced promotional language which explains why we require AfC. If he were notable I would suggest draftify. However given the lack of coverage that I can find for his books in book journals, it seems he's not notable. Perhaps there is a geneology and book fandom site Mr. Bristow could put this work on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article still contains promotional language, and is written from the point of view of someone connected to the subject. However, I do see "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", sufficient to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Genealogical society journals are periodicals. Some of the reviews included are from societies of which Goodwin is a member (Kent and Norfolk), so 3 of the reviews can't be considered independent. That still leaves at least 14 reviews from places such as Boulder, Colorado; Bergen County, New Jersey; Livermore, California; Cardiganshire, Wales; Wakefield, West Yorkshire; and Cheshire; as well as national UK genealogy magazines Family Tree Magazine, Your Family Tree, and Your Family History Magazine. I don't see a requirement in WP:NAUTHOR for reviews to be in "book journals", and newspaper reviews are generally considered acceptable, so I don't see why genealogical journals and magazines shouldn't be, especially when they are from such a wide geographical range and include national titles. The article does still need clean-up, and it would be better to have information from the reviews about the books and characters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, there is a big difference between a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process and a newsletter which might be national (or not) and could well have an editor without firm editorial processes. The first source you listed above is a newsletter - which I would nearly always suspect of not having the sort of editorial guidelines and controls we demand of RS. What are your WP:THREE best sources? Right now it seems like reviews that are equivalent to well written reviews on Amazon or Good Reads as opposed to the kind of reviews I'm used to seeing to establish book notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm assuming that I am allowed a vote in this. Moreover, I have done a lot of work with helpful, constructive advice received and by following the signposts to relevant policies - I am grateful for these interventions by other editors. I am still working in order to improve the article, as I am sure other editors will along the way. I must say that I have added many more references to back up assertions and facts, including those of notability, way beyond those of many other longstanding pages that I have seen on wikipedia. I will await the outcome but, in the event of deletion, I would like the page saved back to my sandbox / user space in order to continue to develop it further for re-publication. Thank you. (RobbieBMilo (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, i was quite excited coming accross this afd about an author of books about Hastings, where my dad came from, but on digging a bit deeper ... library holdings are a bit light on (single, double figures - just click on any of the books here) (just to repeat i see high library holdings as a good indicator of useable reviews being available, plus its an easy way to check on number of editions, lots may be an indication towards the works being "well known"), all/most books appear to have been selfpublished (nothing wrong with that but may not bode well for reviews), and there doesn't appear to be any reviews available apart from geneology publications, again not in itself necessarily of concern but it would be nicer if there were some "mainstream" reviews (of concern is there doesn't appear to be anything from the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer, surprising that he is/was a local lad. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, A quick google (instead of a proper newspapers.com search for Nathan Dylan Goodwin, turned up two Hastings & St Leonards Observer articles straight away. I will add these two shortly and then farm more into the page. I assumed that others would also add to these beginnings. New reviews, articles, interviews are occurring all the time...=== Dwelling on the past pays dividends for author - Hastings Observer ===

[4]

22 Apr 2014 - DWELLING on the past has paid off for author Nathan Goodwin. Fans of his first crime novel are snapping up more than 100 downloads of the book every week. ... It has taken two years to write Hiding The Past while Nathan studied for an MA in creative writing. The story is a geneological ...

[5]

Nathan Goodwin, who wrote Hastings at War in 2005, said his latest publication Hastings: Wartime Memories and Photographs is intended to be a sequel to his ...

This will be added to the main page shortly for you, along with others. Thanks for pointing out the gap! (RobbieBMilo (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

thanks for the above Rjbristow, my gsearching isn't so good at the moment:)), looking at the observer articles some editors may suggest that they are "run of the mill" but rather than a reluctant delete i will now remain neutral (being secretly hopeful of a keep:)), hopefully ARSE .... oops! editors from the Article Rescue Squadron:)) will bring their considerable skills to focus on this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remain committed to addressing any issues ongoing raised in feedback (for which I have been grateful) and, of course, it is hoped that others will also add to this page going forwards. A lot of work has now been put into correcting all so that the article is in line with wikipedia's policies so that editors feel able to vote to Keep the page.(RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G11 as spam. Harsh, I know, but that is what it is, and the COI SPA (that's what we call a single purpose account with a conflict of interest) who created it has done nothing else since registering in 2016. If the subject accumulates genuine notability, other editors will eventually write an encyclopedia article about him here, but this is not it, not by a very long shot. – Athaenara ✉ 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not factually true. I have contributed to and edited numerous other pages. Indeed, I had to have done to become an editor at all in the first place. I would be pleased for editors (including me) to be left time to improve the page. I am confused why in the time-frame set out in the deletion guidance a consensus was achieved and ignored. I suspected that the relisting served only to create artificially the impression that consensus had not been achieved as per policy in order to cultivate hitherto non-existent ill-will against the page. This now seems to be being borne out. I note from your userprofile page that you have deleted 100+ wikipedia pages and have only helped 1 (forgive me if that isn't what the stats mean, but that has been my interpretation) - I believe that the guidance expects more experienced editors to be welcoming and constructive (as indeed all have been up till now): "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page...issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first...Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it...After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome [as has been attempted here]..." (Wikipedia Policy - various). (RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 *'''Comment''' I remain committed to addressing any issues ongoing raised in feedback (for which I have been grateful) and, of course, it is hoped that others will also add to this page going forwards. A lot of work has now been put into correcting all so that the article is in line with wikipedia's policies so that editors feel able to vote to '''Keep''' the page.([[User:Rjbristow|RobbieBMilo]] ([[User talk:Rjbristow|talk]]) 15:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC))
 * '''Delete''' per [[WP:CSD#G11]] as spam.  Harsh, I know, but that is what it is, and the COI SPA (that's what we call a [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single purpose account]] with a [[WP:CSD|conflict of interest]]) who created it has done nothing else since registering in 2016.  '''''If''''' the subject accumulates genuine notability, other editors will eventually write an '''''[[encyclopedia]]''''' article about him here, but this is not it, not by a very long shot.  – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' This is not factually true. I have contributed to and edited numerous other pages. Indeed, I had to have done to become an editor at all in the first place. I would be pleased for editors (including me) to be left time to improve the page. I am confused why in the time-frame set out in the deletion guidance a consensus was achieved and ignored. I suspected that the relisting served only to create artificially the impression that consensus had not been achieved as per policy in order to cultivate hitherto non-existent ill-will against the page. This now seems to be being borne out. I note from your userprofile page that you have deleted 100+ wikipedia pages and have only helped 1 (forgive me if that isn't what the stats mean, but that has been my interpretation) - I believe that the guidance expects more experienced editors to be welcoming and constructive (as indeed all have been up till now): "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page...issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|dispute resolution]] should be used first...Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it...After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|disruptive]] to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome [as has been attempted here]..." (Wikipedia Policy - various). ([[User:Rjbristow|RobbieBMilo]] ([[User talk:Rjbristow|talk]]) 15:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC))