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