Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bangellame

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 speedy delete since the page author requested deletion (G7), and there doesn't seem to be any objection to deletion. JamieS93 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangellame

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

Recently published book written up by the book's publisher who is also the grandson of the book's author. Despite requests, no evidence of notability has been produced, either for the book or its author. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information with strike through above is false information. There is no evidence to support the above description, which is very misleading. --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the strikethrough. It is inappropriate to alter another editor's comments in an AFD. If the information is wrong, then you are free to point it out, and the original editor is free to retract the statement. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was already taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bangellame Shall I migrate the contents of the discussion to this page now? --123flamenco (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to copy the material here. The link you provided above allows editors to review the material. This discussion here is a result of a formal nomination for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It's unclear why the nominator believes the original author of the article is also the publisher. The publisher is Su Su Publishing which has published very little. The original author has acknowledged that he is the grandson of the book's author. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apolgies. For "book's publisher" above, read "person instrumental in getting the book published". The strong, and admitted, COI is what I wanted to convey. Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is about a book that was published only last month. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books, and represents inclusion criteria for Wikipedia and is not a comment on the worthiness of the book itself. I can find no reviews in reliable sources about this book which shouldn't be too surprising as it was published last month. The book has not won a major award. It matters not if an illustration used for a book won an award, as the award is not for the book. Nor is the author of the book so historically significant that all their works are notable. James Joyce would fall into this category, but not Miriam Wilkinson. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly per Whpq. If there are news articles on this book, I am unable to locate them. Alternatively, we need a date and page reference for any news article that isn't online - Something like "New book released; Indianapolis Star, Page G7, 27 October 2009" would work, so long as it provides enough information for someone to track down a copy of the article. If there is additional information about the author or the book itself, now is the time to bring it forward. Please focus this debate on the article, not on other contributors. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that some people at least give some thought to what they say in such discussions as this. I do not believe that this information can be found online. The articles from the early sixties are mainly kept on microfiche. Anyone who has ever searched through such archives will realize that 7 days to locate sources of this nature is rather too short. I simply haven't finished searching, however I know that several newspaper articles will be found, because I have seen them with my own eyes about 40 years ago. Not that I am suggesting that the wiki policies should change. I was simply unaware of these policies when I posted the article, which happens to be the first article that I have ever posted on Wiki. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there seems to be a problem. No matter how anyone tries to argue the contrary, my credulity is on the line and I have no choice other than to react with strong words. Perhaps some people try it on, I am not one of them. The way I see it: Sgroupace seems to have nothing better to do than invent false information. This by the way was both damning and extremely rude. Considering that anyone can read these words, I feel compelled to delete the damning tag once more. Though it should be somebody else that does that. Rather than suffer anymore indignation, I suggest that someone delete the whole article without further ado, including all links to this page because I am sick to the teeth of having to defend claims which are known to be true by not only myself, but by several other people. --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to see a page that says THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED written in bold. That would be worse than me digging a deeper hole for myself than I already have, with the help of Sgroupace - might I add. Just ERROR 404 will do! --81.135.80.178 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.135.80.178 please sign in before editing. Why should your credulity be on the line? I believe every word you say. It is just that a) your claims are insufficient to establish notability and b) for Wikipedia we must have evidence. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I'm overreacting, it's just that the description at the start of this page makes it sound as if I am trying to avoiding providing you with more tangible evidence. The fact is that unearthing it could take a while, because I can't invest an unlimited amount of time searching through archives. The buildings I need to visit are not just on the corner of my street. It is not necessary to explain the criteria any further, and I apologize for my words above. I appreciate your last comment. --123flamenco (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you would need to search for archived material from the 1960's. At issue here is the book, and not Miriam Wilkinson, and since the book was published in September of 2009, there wouldn't be material to substantiate the notability of the book in those archives. You need to provide sourcing to establish the notability of the book. If you are trying to establish that Miriam Wilkinson is of such historic significance that all her works are also notable, then I'm, afraid you will not convince me, as that level of significance should be very evident, and as such would have a plethora of material available online. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. However the archives will be searched. The relevance of the materials I uncover remains to be seen. I am sure you will appreciate that opinions sometimes change. I myself am not an art critic. The Bangellame is art, poetry, calligraphy, a puzzle. Unique among books, but then again it's not for me to judge that. --123flamenco (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. 123flamenco, what the article really needs to avoid deletion is third-party sources to establish its notability, such as book reviews. The only citation it has now regards Wilkinson's tapestry, which is not the subject of the article. If the AfD does result in deletion, don't worry, the article can be userfied for you to work on and find sources for without a deadline. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I could resubmit the article at a later date. I see that there would have to be more substance to the article and some history to the book. Well it has 30 plus years history, so far. It's just not notable by Wiki standards. Thanks for the advice. --123flamenco (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Wilkinson's tapestries. There are several.

Voicing Concern: The Bangellame Wikipedia article appeared on Google search results faster than it was created, and was flagged within 60 seconds. Will Google's database be updated so quickly upon deletion? If not, what message will people see when they click on the link? Most people are not aware of the policies employed by Wikipedia. The first impression that I get when I see a notice of deletion is one of inappropriate content - usually meaning something bad. Are there any assurances that this will not happen? Would it be possible to display a message that does not convey this impression, or will The Bangellame have to wait up to three months as a consequence of my mistake? Updating Google search results can take up to three months. What exactly are the consequences of this deletion in terms of bad publicity? Perhaps three months is nothing compared to having already waited over 30 years to reach the printing press. Still I am having sleepless nights worrying about this. Would it be possible for Wikipedia admin to delete the page entirely rather than displaying a notice of deletion. I would prefer the following message: ERROR 404. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for the promotion of the book which appears to be the reason for this article. As such, its appearance on Google is not relevant. However, you may request speedy deletion as the author, and an admin will evaluate and determine if the request is within policy and act accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question about Google search results. I have more understanding now, after this discussion, and I am not contesting the point. Please understand that I have invested nearly a whole year in doing research, writing text and learning how to display it online etc... to promote something that I consider worth promoting. Adding an article to Wiki was a bad idea, but in no way an unreasonable one. Miriam Wilkinson has created some beautiful art after years of painstaking labour. She simply deseves recognition. I would not dream of promoting my own work on here because I am not at all vain. I would like her artwork, including The Bangellame, to be reviewed. Perhaps I should have invested more time in my own art which happens to be music, but instead I have sacrificed much of my time to this, and not without risk. I cannot make such a decision to delete the article until I know what the consequences are. This article is quite simply bad publicity and I do want the whole affair to end ASAP. I am not sitting at my computer day and night responding to all of these comments for nothing. This means rather too much to me for that. I have read more of the regulations regarding new articles and the deletion process. I didn't find an answer to my question above. I did discover that this AfD has not been conducted as and according to those regulations. I have allowed myself to become embroilled in petty arguments. Perhaps I didn't take much goading, but that is what has happened. The first result on Google points to this page which I am not in favour of - as it does not give a fair representation of Miriam. Nor would a sign saying THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED - as I have tried to argue above. I admit that I have made a mistake, but it was not intended with any malice. Three months with Wikipedia having the first link on Google pointing to a deleted article about the Bangellame is quite simply unreasonable. I have been pressed to meet deadlines and made some mistakes. What I want to know is what can be done about it. Thank you. --123flamenco (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if Wikipedia can magically make search result appear on Google within seconds, they should be able to make them magically dissapear too. As you point out: This is not what the discussion is about, but I don't see the point in starting another discussion elsewhere. That might be of interest to someone else, and perhaps I could contribute, however my attention is focused here. --123flamenco (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say thank you to Whpq who has sent me a PM and been most helpful. If I were to request a speedy deletion, and the message were to read 'This article has been deleted at the request of the author'. I would find that acceptable.

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.