Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean A. Moore
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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean A. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This author appears not to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the best response to this deletion proposal would be to repeat some of my comment from the article's discussion page in regard to the last time there was a delete attempt on the article. At least this time the process is being gone about properly.
- "Looks like someone has a vendetta against the idea of an article on Moore. ... While not the article's original creator, I undertook to recreate it, ... because its disappearance left a hole in the otherwise comprehensive group of articles on Conan the Barbarian authors.
- "Moore's involvement in the continuation of the work of Robert E. Howard entitles him to an article, in my view. Not only did he contribute a couple Conan novels, but his involvement in the Kull movie, both as a contributor to the screenplay and the author of the novelization, also appear to me to be significant. Both points are present in the article by implication if not explicit statement, and would be obvious to any student of Howard's work ..."
- My opinion, as before, is that the article should be kept. BPK (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BPK2, do you have any reasons based on the notability guidelines you could cite to inform this decision? Thanks, Bongomatic 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Not a living person, therefore information is not apt to be commercial and is more apt to be historical. Subject was published by one of the most venerable publishers, Macmillan, per THIS LINK. Seems to be a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, although one would like to see a national obituary of some sort to validate this admittedly impressionistic recommendation. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
- Hi Carrite. I don't see any support in the guidelines for the notion that being published by a venerable publishing house makes an author notable. Can you please point out the provision? Bongomatic 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prolific author[1] whose multiple works have been themselves the subject of multiple critical commentary and review, bringing him in under WP:CREATIVE. Yes, the article needs to make use of additional sourcing, but as this is not a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT, such improvements should be done through the course of regular editing. Their current lack is not cause to delete an improvable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any examples of significant critical attention given to the author's work? Bongomatic 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... multiple books on a highly notable topic. Yup... such books get reviewed. It might not happen in the next few minutes, but either myself or others will search for and offer links to various reviews and comentary of his various Conan the Barbarian books. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked through all sorts of media for the author's name. Typically a book review will mention it. So I'm skeptical. The subject specific guidelines (originally) were intended to be facts that if true give rise to a presumption that there was actually GNG-type coverage of something, just that it couldn't be identified. They seem to have morphed to standalone criteria. But I don't think concluding that a subject meets subject-specific guidelines because of the presumed existence of sources is a valid rationale. Moreover, I don't think your application of common sense is accurate—the more notable the topic, the more likely there is to be tons of non-notable fandom and other cruft about it. Bongomatic 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a "presumption" such as mine is a valid rationale per guideline, but invoking it always leads to WP:Burden being placed on he who presumes. As noted above, I will be looking for reviews of his works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how a presumption not based on guidelines without any evidence is a valid basis for an opinion (specifically, an opinion that needn't be disregarded). I'm not sure where quoting BURDEN (a failed proposal) comes into it, either. Could you explain either?
- A failed proposal?? Err... excuse me, but you are incorrect. The link I offered is a shortcut that leads directly to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence... a WP:Policy... and definitely not a "failed proposal". And my ability to make a reasonable presumption that sources may exist is encouraged by multiple guidelines. So my "presumption" IS based upon and specifically allowed by existing guideline. And I offered BURDEN only because it seems that quite often when an editor offers an opinion based upon a guideline accepted and encouraged "presumpton", another editor might respond "prove it", and declare under WP:BURDEN that it is up to a presuming editor to defend his presumption... and yes, this request/demand is made at many AFDs even though BURDEN is intended for when a user is editing an article, and not intended as an argument at AFD.
- Your nomination statement is/was "This author appears not to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources." My guideline supported response is that the GNG is not the sole manner by which notability for a prolific writer of works on a notable topic may be established. And so here we are. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On Burden, my mistake, I was erroneously referring to Wikipedia:Burden of evidence. Beyond this, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of AUTHOR, which provides notability for authors who have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Here, to say that the author's (un-reviewed in RS, as far as I can tell) pastiche novels cannot be said to be part of a "significant collective body of work" as they are not part of the significant body (they are barely even peripheral to it). There are no sources that tie these books into the notable body of work they orbit around. The novelization of a film is not what the guideline intend with "the subject of an independent feature-length film". First, it's not independent of the film. Second, the film is the subject of the novel, not the other way around. Bongomatic 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... I can understand why that one failed. But per guideline, his collective body of work includes many more than just the three pastiche novels,[2] hence my use above of the word "prolific". And that one novel came from a film rather than the other-way-round does not denigrate it under CREATIVE, as it is still a part of his "collective body of work". 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- On Burden, my mistake, I was erroneously referring to Wikipedia:Burden of evidence. Beyond this, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of AUTHOR, which provides notability for authors who have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Here, to say that the author's (un-reviewed in RS, as far as I can tell) pastiche novels cannot be said to be part of a "significant collective body of work" as they are not part of the significant body (they are barely even peripheral to it). There are no sources that tie these books into the notable body of work they orbit around. The novelization of a film is not what the guideline intend with "the subject of an independent feature-length film". First, it's not independent of the film. Second, the film is the subject of the novel, not the other way around. Bongomatic 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how a presumption not based on guidelines without any evidence is a valid basis for an opinion (specifically, an opinion that needn't be disregarded). I'm not sure where quoting BURDEN (a failed proposal) comes into it, either. Could you explain either?
- Well, a "presumption" such as mine is a valid rationale per guideline, but invoking it always leads to WP:Burden being placed on he who presumes. As noted above, I will be looking for reviews of his works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked through all sorts of media for the author's name. Typically a book review will mention it. So I'm skeptical. The subject specific guidelines (originally) were intended to be facts that if true give rise to a presumption that there was actually GNG-type coverage of something, just that it couldn't be identified. They seem to have morphed to standalone criteria. But I don't think concluding that a subject meets subject-specific guidelines because of the presumed existence of sources is a valid rationale. Moreover, I don't think your application of common sense is accurate—the more notable the topic, the more likely there is to be tons of non-notable fandom and other cruft about it. Bongomatic 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... multiple books on a highly notable topic. Yup... such books get reviewed. It might not happen in the next few minutes, but either myself or others will search for and offer links to various reviews and comentary of his various Conan the Barbarian books. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any examples of significant critical attention given to the author's work? Bongomatic 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Schmidt. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is a little bit of coverage--more about his death than anything else, here and here. Then there is a mention (no more!) here. I also found this, which doesn't count for much. To all the fans: these are mentions; our guidelines require significant, in-depth discussion, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not done looking, but I don't see a keep here yet. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, while the GNG often tends to be a default now-a-days for determining notability, not meeting it is not an automatic deathknell, as guidelines in many situations allows notability to be found and accepted even when significant coverage is lacking. For example, WP:ANYBIO allows notability through the winning of a notable award... and WP:CREATIVE allows notability if someone's work is itself the recipient of multiple reviews and commentary... without demanding that the individual also have significant personal coverage. Indeed, thre are cases many of us have seen where an article might have met or exceeded the caveats of the GNG yet was still deleted. To summarize: The GNG and the various SNGs are meant to work in concert, but not be mutually exclusionary. An article might pass one or the other, but need not pass both... and SNGs are acceptable as long as the assertions of notability are themselves verifiable in reliable sources. And as helpful as significant coverage can be in expanding article content, there is no policy or guideline mandate that the verification itself must be in-depth or substantive... it simply needs to be reliable. Your finds so far are actually quite acceptable, even only sourcing a small or factoid in this article. They do not bring him in under the GNG, no... but simply meeting the GNG is not the asssertion of notability, nor is meeting it the mandate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The arenas for which meeting GNG does not qualify a topic for inclusion are very limited. While the subject-specific guidelines are frequently more inclusive, where they are not met, generally, meeting GNG would give rise to a presumption of inclusion. Here, I don't think anyone has given a credible basis for finding the subject to have met any subject-specific guidelines or the GNG—as such an inquiry into whether the GNG is met seems appropriate. Bongomatic 04:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, an inquiry into meeting the GNG is always worth making. But in light of Drmies' comment/question above "our guidelines require significant, in-depth discussion, if I'm not mistaken," I felt a little clarification was in order... and ended up giving a lot. I might have simply written "meeting the GNG is one of the means by which one might show a presumed notability, but it is not the only way." I sometimes tend to be a bit too verbose. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The arenas for which meeting GNG does not qualify a topic for inclusion are very limited. While the subject-specific guidelines are frequently more inclusive, where they are not met, generally, meeting GNG would give rise to a presumption of inclusion. Here, I don't think anyone has given a credible basis for finding the subject to have met any subject-specific guidelines or the GNG—as such an inquiry into whether the GNG is met seems appropriate. Bongomatic 04:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.