Talk:Nick Burbridge

Untitled

Talk:Nick Burbridge This page has been proposed for speedy deletion on the grounds that it concerns a living person, and not the significance of his work. In fact, close inspection will reveal that a. the page specifically concerns the significance of Nick Burbridge's work as a writer of some stature in several fields, which any Google search will substantiate, and not a mere biographical account . b. His writing is of interest, regardless of his personal status, as representative of the concerns of those at the margins of society, and is worthy of record, particularly as informative evidence of creative enterprise in the face of a common debilitating condition. c. His work as a songwriter, detailed on the page, with widely regarded folk-rock band The Levellers, in itself is of significance to large numbers, and represents an original and highly fruitful collaboration. d. Critical acclaim makes his work generally worth this kind of public record. Gillburb (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

can you support the critical acclaim with some reliable references to show that others have written about the man or his work? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your most recent message, I see I may have misunderstood the reasons behind the speedy deletion criteria. Some references would be easy to locate, such as Dance Before The Storm, George Berger (Virgin Books) and internet reviews in such places as netrhythms and folking.com. Others, in individual copies of newspapers and journals from long ago might be much more difficult. I see, though, that this is not the only problem, and in fact, the article is flawed on many points, and it may well be the tone itself, ultimately, that is unnacceptable. Addressing all the issues would take some time, and work is pressing. So perhaps I should retain a copy of the text and readdress the article for Wikipedia at a later date perhaps when I've had time to absorb the stipulations properly! In the meantime, and in the light of this, I would not contest its deletion as soon as possible, complete with the rather embarrassing flagging of its inadequacies, please! Gillburb (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. I don't think the inadequacies of the article so very great, and the tags are not supposed to be embarrassing but simply requests for others to help: this is a collaborative project and you are not expected to do all the work on this article by yourself. However, if you really wish, I can move the article into your userspace where you can work on it at whatever pace you want. Let me know what you decide and I will get to it as soon as I can. As a by the way, I am not sure whether netrhythms and folking.com would be considered reliable sources for our purposes, but I can see that there are clearly reliable info about Mr. Burbridge on googlebooks and googlenews, for example --Slp1 (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to be peppering you with suggested readings but it just occurs to me based on your username that you might know Mr. Burbridge. If so, it will be important to take a look at these WP:AUTO and WP:COI for a bit more information about this.--Slp1 (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. I must admit to being something of a Luddite where technology is concerned, and I expected to be able to place the article in the manner one does with a piece in a hard copy journal, for instance. And I hoped to do it in the small time I had available just now, before the imminent onset of teaching and preparation work I have to deal with. I see, of course, that sources would have to be more effectively tagged; and no, perhaps there aren't, after all, too many adjustments to be made. So it would be worth readdressing. In answer to your other question, Yes, I am indeed related to Mr Burbridge, but my purpose in uploading the piece was to offer an objective account of his work at a particular stage, where it would be appropriate for various reasons, and explain its significance. Thanks for your patience. Gillburb (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I've seen the references and links that have been added, am grateful for them (long may they continue!) and have faith others will also be editing. There are certainly some strong authenticating references and sources to be cited. I have had a quick rewrite myself, and hope this is now steering towards something acceptable. Gillburb (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

References and categories have now been added, with detailed source information where possible, by a reader, and, with a more specific tilt at notability, the piece appears pretty much acceptable now. Gillburb (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is doing well, and is looking much better indeed. Congratulations to all involved, and I will remove some of the tags. I would suggest a couple of things:

• We really need as much evidence of the notability of Nick himself... brief mentions and reviews are acceptable, but may not meet the criteria for WP:BIO notability by themselves. Has there ever been articles/programmes in newspapers, radio/tv about him that could be included? What about reviews of his books/plays/poetry/journals etc?
• Some work still needs to be done about tone, which is somewhat promotional rather than being encyclopedic (see the last sentence for example, but there are others). --Slp1 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. There are indeed appropriate reviews, articles etc "about him". This will be addressed as soon as possible. Gillburb (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a stab at this, have removed the last sentence, and will look for other reviews, articles etc. which I know are out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymour22 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have spent some time digging out the various BBC features and other profiles to further substantiate this, some of which I have imput now. I've also removed the 'promotional' elements. Is it getting there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymour22 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) More changes in tone now made and more details on notability with Wikipedia links etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.167.32 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of good work has been done here, and I have done some further clean up and removed some of the tags. My only problem is that I am still not sure that Mr. Burbridge meets the criteria per WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC. What I notice is that lots of the references make only brief mentions of him, and sometimes are actually not really about him, but about the actors, the band etc. He sounds like a great man, with many fantastic talents and interests, but I'm still not confident that he really meets the grade per our policies. Some articles about him would really help. Also some full length reviews of his books, plays, music etc published in mainstream (national, if possible) media. --Slp1 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has read the above and some info has been added. That's great However, this is an encyclopedia, not a testimonial. You can use the references to prove notability and just summarize the material without directly quoting such large chunks of the reviews. Some short quotes are fine, obviously. Also remember that this article needs to be of neutral point of view so if these reviews/source also say uncomplimentary things about his work, you need to include them too, also in summary of course. You need to fairly represent the reviews and not just pick out the good parts, which I suspect may be happening at present. This is one of difficulties and downsides of writing about a subject that you are close to, but neutral editing is required of all WP editors.--Slp1 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I overlooked signing in, in haste as I've been! I see what you mean all round, and have now tried to adjust the article accordingly. I obviously quoted too much favourable material in order to meet the criteria, as I understood things. It certainly wasn't meant to sound like a testimonial, since the whole purpose of the piece is to have something up there that fairly represents a writer working with what success has been available to him, objectively, given the condition he suffers from, so that it will be of special interest to fellow-sufferers, and equally informative to others who consult Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments in this regard. I do hope there's enough there now. I've also taken on board your comments about summarising material, and tried to make the piece as sensibly readable as possible. It certainly looks much more suitable to me. I'm afraid my time is very limited at the moment, though this is a fascinating business. I hope others will now contribute here. If Nick is not ultimately considered sufficiently notable, it will have been a useful exercise, and one I may certainly repeat! Gillburb (talk)

Although fitting Nick Burbridge into a 'category' may be hard, he is nevertheless a genuine 'underground' figure who has, unusually perhaps, been able to spread his work across these different forms, to published critical acclaim in each. So while he might not be so easily defined conventionally, that surely doesn't make his status any less notable, his work any less culturally valuable.

I have also looked into what I could find about Nick Burbridge getting the commission and writing 'War Without Honour' in collaboration with Fred Holroyd. This was surely a groundbreaking piece of work, which at the time roused Ken Livingstone to table a parliamentary question asking Mrs Thatcher if she intended to read the book as a matter of national importance. As co-author of this book, he has played a significant part in ensuring far more information has become available to any future account of the history of military intelligence in Northern Ireland than has otherwise come into the public domain. (Dinahnow (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Wikpedia, as a "people's encyclopedia" would seem to be an ideal place for this kind of potted biography, IMHO. Clearly, there must be guidelines to protect the integrity of entries. But it's surely true that notability can't in all cases be judged on strictly conventional criteria. For a writer like Nick Burbridge, who emerged in the "punk" years, eschewed much of mainstream values whilst able to contribute to them, and whose work is still imbued with the more substantial challenges issued in that era, to have a record of this kind available is surely a useful addition to the encyclopedia. Richard97 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hate to say this, but are you all friends of Nick's? Or are you Nick? Have you been asked to come here by him or somebody who knows him? Or perhaps you are all the same person editing under multiple names? The fact that these points here are the first and only edits to WP is rather striking. I don't mean to be discouraging, but the fact is that this kind of "rush" of first time voices to support a borderline article makes experienced WP editors understandably suspicious of WP:SOCKPUPPETs and WP:MEATPUPPETs, which is not generally the greatest idea. It's not that new voices are not valued, but that it seems likely that this is being engineered. Like it or not, we do have to follow the guidelines about notability. Finding as many of the appropriate sources and including them in the article would be a great idea. --Slp1 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo again. I've been alerted to your latest comment. I certainly communicated with others, not fictitious, who are keen on Nick's work, to offer their opinions, and didn't know this would be any sort of contravention, given this is a talkpage. But of course I should respect your protocol and appreciate what you say. I have found a lot of appropriate sources, as far as I can see, for the piece. ( I should say, for instance, that both fRoots and R2 are the foremost international journals in one of the relevant fields) and it seems relatively balanced now, as you asked for it to be. The other person who helped to edit is an assistant editor on an arts magazine. I hope more come to light. I have admitted the familial relationship with Nick my name makes obvious anyway. Sorry if, in my eagerness, I may have crossed the line again! Thanks once more for your encouragement so far. I shall let things be for now perhaps! Gillburb (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so forthright and upfront. It is appreciated, and I understand. I tend to be a bit relaxed about these things, but there are others who aren't, and things can get nasty rather quickly, I'm sorry to say. Anyway, I think you've done lots of good work, and I doubt the article will be nominated for deletion at this point, since there seem to be plenty of refs to his notability. I will go through it sometime soon to do a bit of cleanup and reorganization. If you had a photo of him that you have taken, you could upload it if you like. (see the upload file link on the left). There are great fears of copyright problems, so it is important to fill out all the information requested correctly, but it is much easier if the photo is yours. You can insert it into the article in the "Image" section of the infobox that I am going to add soon. If you decide to do this, let me know if you need more help or information. BTW, I'm glad you've found this WP editing interesting. You really have learned a lot very quickly, and I would encourage you to keep on editing, on other articles too. It is quite a fun little hobby most of the time!!--Slp1 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - especially for reorganising the entry so effectively. I will certainly upload a photo when I can. And, yes, indeed, it is interesting. Principally, Wikipedia has, until now, represented the first stop during the children's homework, but it has a whole new meaning! On which note, I've noticed an error in the entry about Anne, Viscountess Conway - I'm doing some work on her in my spare time - which I have corrected as a rather less "involved" editor! I'm afraid anything more substantial will have to wait until at least this term is over. (Though I have now added more useful information to the Burbridge entry!) Thanks again. Gillburb (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)