Talk:Sarah Bakewell

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliable sources[edit]

I have gutted this article because most of it is promotion and unsourced. Please do not re-add the material without providing sources. Also, please do no add promotional external links to the body of the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with this approach. Granted the article named the subject's website as a source (so the source wasn't good), but the article also listed a book review in the New York Times, which has also been cynically deleted. The remaining Guardian link contains a review by The Guardian of the same book. Bakewell is very likely to meet WP:AUTHOR on that basis. I am reverting the unnecessary deletion (which was completely out-of-scale to the problem) and removing the innaccurate 'unreferenced' tag. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one review satisfy WP:AUTHOR? The guideline states that the subject should have created a work which has been the subject of "multiple articles or reviews". Your reversion reintroduced a load of promotional material. I find it a tad hypocritical for you to call my approach heavy handed when you can't be bothered to sort out any of the problems yourself past hitting the big "revert" button. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not 'hit the revert button'. I did not add 'cruft'. Which sentences were 'cruft'? Your actions amount to vandalism and are unhelpful. Read the references. There were two online reviews of Bakewell's book in well-respected newspapers, the review in the NYT described the book as widely reviewed to critical acclaim (or similar description). Please let the AfD decide the outcome of this article and not take the decision into your own hands. Sionk (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some examples of cruft you reintroduced would include: claims about an award her book apparently won, without sourcing it at all; reintroducing external links into the body (see WP:External links); reverting a whole paragraph sourced to her own website (see WP:NOTRS); trying to make this harder to criticise by using another source which does meet WP:RS, but doesn't actually back up the claim it's attached to; etc. etc. Try to take some more care before hitting "rollback" next time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously have a different interpretation of 'cruft'. True, a few things on Wikipedia need to be deleted on sight. Plausible claims to notability don't fall into that category. Why not leave a 'citation needed' tag and help the author improve the article? The claim that her book was a winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award is something that needs to be investigated and sourced, but not deleted on sight. The NYT article verifies a lot of biographical information (which you deleted again), such as her education and employment history. Sionk (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sarah Bakewell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]