Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linton Robinson

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Robinson[edit]

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

This article was deleted under prod and then restored.

On checking through it I removed parts of it as gross BLP violations - accusing him of various criminal activity [1]

But I'm really not sure about the rest of it. The article presents him as a notable author and journalist with a colourful life - but I'm not sure how much of this is promotional spin.

There look like a lot of sources, but many don't mention him, or link to fairly dubious bookselling websites.

If someone wants to fix this up and establish notability with reliable sources, fine. Otherwise it probably needs to go. (Happy to be proved wrong here) Scott Mac (Doc) 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I pretty much doubt anyone could fix and establish any notability. Pay careful look at the bibliography. Adoro Books is a pay per print and not a real editor. And check the other books..., if him being an author, as suggested in the intro is what is supposed to make him notable, no one become notable by simply publishing a booklet on Mexican Slang and some other vanities. To add, much of the article is a biography with internal information which could only be comming from the subject himself. -RobertMel (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the big deal? - Just off the top, the prison business is not contentious, is very much a part of the journalistic role Robinson played in San Diego, and essential to much of his writing. He's seen it, has no problem with it. It's not an "accusation", it's a fact easily verifiable...just not linkable to.

Adoro Books is NOT, as a matter of fact, a "pay for print" and wonder why somebody would say that with no evidence behind the accusation. Send an email to them and offer them money to publish you and see what happens, perhaps? There are no "other vanities" involved. The Mexican Slang book is one of the three best selling books in English in Mexico as is constantly cited as a major guide to understanding Mexican culture. Try reading some of the references on the website from some of the most noted names in "gringo Mexico books". Robinson's role in Mazatlan journalism was major: probably the most significant foreign journalist in the region. We tried to link to some of that: articles that challenged and changed laws, altered the status of foreigners in that region. We checked it out with the editor of the English paper in that town and the Ameican consul. Maybe Mexico isn't a real place to wikipedia? Is that the problem? His work with Seattle publications and in the catalog industry was highly influential, but before everything got put online. Is there somebody we can arrange to communicate with people about this, or is the only that counts things that are linkable to? Is the catalog industry not a real field? When every slightest name or acronym in the computer field is enshrined? Actually, whatever "internal information" is, such things can ONLY come from an author itself. Think. You read something about the childhood of Steven King...where'd they get the information? We contacted Mr. Robinson and finally wheedled information for him (and from his website and few others about him) Naturally. We have had less luck with Seattle poets Steve Bernstein and Ed Wilsun, because they're dead. Therefore not a problem because they arent' BLP's anymore? Sorry if this sounds a little cynical, but it's hard to make sense of all this. This man has published quite a few books, has had social impact in several areas. There are authors on wiki with much less going for them. The accusations of "vanity" and "pay for it" are unfounded and untrue and there is no attempt to substatiate them. We'd suggest ignoring them. If having a dozen books out and changing Mexican laws to allow foreigners more investmemt security and rewriting mail-order approach isn't enough, fine. We'll wait until fall when his TV series airs and put this stuff up again. It just seems like a nuisance, though. Since it's apparently all right to call for deletion based on things that are silly like "you got this boyhood stuff from the author" or flat-out untrue like the "vanity" crack, can we ask what sort of stuff we have to do to make this thing okay? It's gone beyond trying to memorialize Seattle poetry, by now. Into trying to figure this place out and work with it constructively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All info on wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable third-party sources. We don't use stuff "weedled out of people". If the chap is a noted author then there will be reviews of his books etc published either online or in mainstream journals and newspapers. Are there?--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer to only one point here. This page here write: Print their own paper books in low numbers at low costs. No real editor require the author to pay for the printing. -RobertMel (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your only point, there seems to be little problem. That's not Adoro Books, that's a special line for ebook manuals for writers. Featuring manuals to be worked with on computers...a paper book would be ridiculous. I own the video manual and it's great. And, again, you are talking about authors paying for printing without one single shred of evidence or citation to back up your insinuation. Why are you doing that? Also, there are reviews. Just read the sources. It's hard to understand why bio details would be of such importance here. Surely the important thing is the books themselves: which are all linked to and available from about 4 different presses. None of them vanity presses. Is this a discussion or some weird witch-hunt. And there are plenty of writers listed on wiki with less substantiation. But let's see what turns up.

Just out of curiosity, what is this mania for chopping off bios of the living. Does dying make one more significant or something. A serious question, asked sincerely. Why would Olympic Gold athletes and published writers be axed because they're alive? Also...why is the word "promotion" cropping up? What could possibly be considered promotional about this, even before the prison stuff got hacked out?-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 10:29PM, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.216.68 (talk)

That's its faq, and the special like you claim viewed when pressing on Works home at the left side. As for the book section, I was wrong, but it says about the publisher: Adoro is a "moonlighting" project created by industry professionals--writers, editors, designers, artists, publicists--as a "labor of love" to attempt to transcend the restrictions and drawbacks of the traditional publishing model. It represents, at several levels, a decentralized approach to publication. Whatever that means. This sort of project there are now plenty, here one in French (at the middle range between vanity and an editor). The whole point here is that the info in the main article is internal info comming from the author and can not be sourced. Can you? -RobertMel (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says they're considering a manual telling authors how to print books...be self-publishers, in other words...not that they are vanity publishers or charge authors or any of the other terms you drop in here, like "other vanity" etc. You have made charges with no grounds...ironically in a discusstion that mentions not having contentious material. Odd. The differences between people self-pulishing and people charging others to publish for pay are so distinct it's hard to believe that anybody would have trouble with it. But it certainly would not imply the charges of vanity publishing you made earlier on and if you're so interested in not having uncited accusations on wiki, you should consider editing your comments.The French thing you cite has absolutely nothing to do with Adoro Books' approach, which you admit you don't understand. Write them and ask them, rather than jump to conclusions and call them a vanity press. Okay?

Of course there is no way to verify with links early bio material, anymore than posting a link to something Steven King said he heard from his parents. The fact that these books are on sale, that these articles appeared, would seem proven by mere clicking. Why are you doing this? Give us a little time on the citations. But don't be silly about being able to back up bio material with "facts" or try to pretend that it is a criterion that exists for other wikipedia persons or the academic world in general. And please observe your own rules about tossing around words like "promotion" and "vanity", will you? -Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 11:45AM, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, all this is irrelevant, I said I was mistaken. As for the French publisher, it is actually the same thing. Both are locals, which publish what generally others would turn down, they're both decentralized new kinds. But all this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the article is written by internal info and it is silly to ask more time after admitting it is internal info. If you are gonna answer anything be ready to provide the published material which back the article. -RobertMel (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no you are mistaken again, and continuing to make statements that YOU can't back up, making snide insinuations about things you demonstrably and admittedly know nothing about whatsoever. Adoro is not "local"...they are net based. If you think they are "local", what is their locale? They don't necessarily "publish what others turn down" and you have absolutely nothing to back that up, yet post it here as fact. In FACT, they commissioned two of their books by contacting people and asking them to collect their material as books to be published. I know this because, unlike you, I looked into it. Yet you continue to make invalid statements while whining about "citations". If anything here is "internal" it's your stuff: not gotten from author websites or public records, but just your own unsupported hunch about things you are ignorant of. How about you just hold your horses and quit making untrue statements, see what goes down. Is that unreasonable? Less reasonable than continuing to post fallacious assertations?

-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 9:13PM, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant it only publish local stuff, not that they only publish in their locality. Taken from a catalogue on publisher's (on Adora books), it says regional, I won't argue with you more, you can keep accusing me or continue calling me an ignorant for all I care or pulling my legs. Fact remains that you have yet to show from where the info comes from, unless you provide that there is really nothing to debate... you have to tango alone. I rest my case. -RobertMel (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a third party "catalogue, not the "publisher's catalog". Ironically, in terms of this discussion... the third party reference is innacurate. Running through the actual catalog on their site you quickly find authors from Great Britain, New Mexico, Mexico, Wyoming. You keep saying there is nothing to debate, then posting gratuitous fallacious statements. The "accusations" don't come from me: they come from you saying this is a vanity press, running rejected material for pay, etc. etc. The only "ignorance" mentioned comes from others saying things they admit they know nothing about.

If this is some sort of weird hit job, there is no reason to continue. If it's some legitimate attempt a versimilitude, could you respond to a frequent and pertinent question: WHAT citations of WHAT? Are you saying that no detail of childhood, etc can be presented here unless it comes from a third party? You do realize that few bios or wiki entries meet that criterion? Are you saying that any work listed here needs to have something other than a link to the publisher? If so what? Please be more specific. PLEASE stop publishing untrue statements. Tell the truth, we're at the point of losing interest in this entire project and have notified the author that if he gives a damn about this to get involved himself. But this discussion itself has become interestesting (frustrating, revealing, etc).

Are you saying that no wikipedia bio can have anything in it that is not verified by some reference to something linkable on the net? Are you saying this applies to all bios, or all living bios? Could you spell this out a little? Without making more innacurate accusations?

We've added some references we scraped up. There's a disavantage here due to the recent advent of online material from magazines, but we're trying to work with wikipedia, while trying to figure out what exactly is expected. If you'll chill until next month there will be more.-Dustry Joe (talk • contribs) 9:46AM, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.216.68 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I refer Dustry Joe to WP:BLP, which explains our guidelines on biographies of living persons. Rather than demanding the explanation here in the AFD project page, that link will answer the questions, as will a {{helpme}} template posted in his talk page. This said, Mr. Robinson does not quite seem to meet our [[WP:GNG|general notability guidelines. He's an author. Great, so are many people - but getting published, unto itself, does not make an author notable, it means he's had his works published. This said, we still need something that we can verify from [[WP:RS|reliable sources - and Joe, you should check those out before asking further questions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:V, with a nod toward WP:COI as well. And yes, Dustry, that is how it works: if something cannot be sourced to reliable sources, it cannot be in Wikipedia. This applies to every type of article, but biographies of living people are especially important to source correctly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 27 February 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.