Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Garcia y Robertson

Add links
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 This AFD has turned nasty and I advise all to remember to keep a cool head. It's not worth getting this worked up over, but when the nominator says, "Can't you see that the deletion debate has already come out in favour of keeping the article?" I'll take that as a withdrawal/sign that this can be closed. It isn't worth it to keep this open.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. Garcia y Robertson

[edit]
R. Garcia y Robertson (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)

No evidence of notability. All books appear to be self-published through a variety of companies such as Avon Books. Deb (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : He has published in Tor Books, which is pretty much one of the biggest sci fi/fantasy publishers in existence. And Avon is an imprint of Harper Collins not a self publishing company. There are a couple of book reviews by him JSTOR which give brief biological details. I will try to find other sources--Sodabottle (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the "Avon" referred to in the article is not the same Avon as the subsidiary of Harper Collins. Deb (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson's novels are indeed published by the professional publishers Avon and Tor. Kirkus called his first novel, The Spiral Dance, “surely the best debut of the year.” His editor at Avon was Chris Miller and his editor at Tor was David Hartwell. He also won the Writers of the Future Contest in 1988 and has published professional stories in Asimov's and Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. He has published an article on his writing and subsequent publications in Writers of the Future Volume VIII (1992). He has been inactive in the field for several years, but is certainly a professional author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.254.154 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you'll find it's Avon Books, as opposed to Avon, the imprint of Harper Collins. Deb (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Tor, that's got "multiple issues" as an article. But I don't mind believing that he's notable if someone can just provide evidence of this. Deb (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask what review you are referring to? Deb (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of this in the article. Deb (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 'Keep' " on the basis that the above information (unsigned, PAD, Jamesaxler, Gryphon) is absolutely correct. There's no question that Robertson has been published by legitimate publishers Avon (HarperCollins) and Tor (Macmillan). If there IS an Avon that's a self-publishing company, I'm not familiar with it, but I'm familiar with Robertson's books and they came from the "real" Avon. Deb is clearly wrong; I won't speculate as to her motives but there's no reason to delete a listing on the basis of obviously unprovable innuendo and misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.22 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major publishers, clearly notable. Article needs to be expanded, but there's no reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on AN/I, in the 1990's Avon was a major paperback imprint, although I'm not certain who owned it at the time. Not only that, but, for instance, The Spiral Dance was also published in hardcover, by William Morrow, an established publisher. (See this from Bookfinder.com) At the time, it was not unusual for the original publisher of a genre book to be the paperback house, and the rights were then sold to a hardcover imprint for a limited release. I'm not sure if this is still the case or not, but in any event, there is absolutely no doubt that the Avon books were not self-published. For one thing, the self-publication industry was very undevelped at the time, nothing like what it is now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia article on Avon Books, it was bought by the Hearst Corporation in 1959 (and, indeed, my paperback version of Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire from the 70s lists Avon as part of Hearst), but was bought in 1999 by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and merged with HarperCollins. My copy of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, published by Avon in 1991, the same year that they published The Spiral Dance, just lists "Avon Books Inc." with an address on the Avenue of the Americas. The back of the book has ads for books by Ben Bova, Ray Bradbury and other recognizable names, clear evidence that it's not a self-publishing firm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, in case the argument is that it's a different "Avon", the ISBN for The Forever War has the same ISBN prefix (0-380-) as listed for The Spiral Dance. Can we put this to bed now? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Avon has been a major publisher since about 1940; Tor somewhat more lately but still a major house. I cannot believe that a vanity press calling itself "Avon" that is separate from the existing publishing house would be allowed to continue in existence, for copyright/trademark issues, and there is no evidence of there being any self-publishing efforts associated with the long-standing Avon imprimatur. This author seems to me to considerably exceed the notability requirements for authors. I considered closing this myself as a snowball but we may as well let it run its full course. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known author published by well-known houses. Woogee (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I know there's some thing you're supposed to type that signs these types of entries..." Peter, to include your signature, just type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this has attracted so much interest from genuine contributors as well as sockpuppets. The fact that it's an old imprint that was taken over later by HarperCollins would explain, I suppose, why Mr Robertson is not listed by Avon Books as one of their authors.

But, you know, all I was asking for was for the article to provide some evidence of notability. Yet still no one has added any references apart from the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. Deb (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I added the blpsources tag. Woogee (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Publication of numerous books by recognized and reputable commercial publishers is an indication of notability. Here's another: 524,000 GHits for "R. Garcia y Robertson", and take a look at these results on Google Books, and these od Google Scholar, then please take a moment to check out WP:BEFORE.

I believe you need to recognize that you made an error and withdraw this nomination, which at this point should probably be WP:SNOWed as "Keep". (And please, be more circumspect about throwing around the charge of sockpuppetry, especially since you have essentially no evidence to support it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud. Can't you see that the deletion debate has already come out in favour of keeping the article? And can't you see that the nomination was based on lack of evidence of notability in the article? As for the sockpuppetry, I agree it is probably meatpuppetry, but it could hardly be more blatant. Deb (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between an article not having sufficient sourcing for a BLP -- the correction for which is either finding the sources or tagging the article as Woogee did, and the article not having sufficient evidence to show the notability of the subject. That burden of evidence is significantly lower and there was enough in the article to begin with. But even putting that aside, WP:BEFORE obliges you to do some investigation before nominating the article, and had that been done, it would have been clear that it was not a good idea to nominate it. Please in the future perform the due diligence that is required of those who nominate articles for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ever nominate without doing some basic investigation. Now some people have demonstrated to me that some of the investigation I did led me to an incorrect conclusion - that is quite a different thing. Strangely, none of those to whom this author is so important seem prepared to work to improve the article about him/her. You can go on chastising me as long as you like, but hard facts about the subject have been thin on the ground until this evening. Deb (talk) 21:54, 23 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R._Garcia_y_Robertson&oldid=1138271278"