Talk:Up to Now (autobiography)

Sources

I can't find much about the book. It just gets a mention as a source in his bio at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which says nothing about the book. GBooks shows up very little, just a handful of reviews. Not enough so far for a separate article in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A mere mention in a bibliography isn't the same as being the "subject of a ... published work" (per WP:NBOOK), and it doesn't appear to have enough other coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Unless such coverage is found, or the given sources turn out to discuss the book in depth, it would appear to fail criteria for inclusion. Feezo (Talk) 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to check the 3 books added to the article. You can search the Holroyd and Kurth ones at Amazon.com, but all I found was in Holroyd and that just said that in his autobiography Shaw said something tactfully about Isadora. I've asked the editor to comment here or on this talk page (he's blocked for 12 hours and I said I'd copy it over to here). Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Google books has a snippet view of the Craig one. From what I can tell it's just a brief mention in the bibliography, and a decidedly POV one at that [1]. Feezo (Talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "POV" really applies there -- if it were a straight review using that language, would we call it POV? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gushing about "this most joyous book" doesn't scream "reliable source" to me. If we had a selection of sources to choose from, wouldn't we first pick the most unbiased and neutral? Feezo (Talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of that book is praising this book; I don't feel that such praise is really an NPOV violation as we understand it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, citing a partisan source isn't a violation, although WP:RS does advise caution in such cases. The real issue is that it doesn't appear to sufficiently discuss the book to be useful as a source. Feezo (Talk) 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Freezo deleted the existing sources and then did an edit saying the article needs sources! he has not read the sources I posted, which I have, so is not in a position to say if they are good sources or not. Obviously I will have to restore the sources as there are none at present. Plainly Up To Now itself is a source for an article about up To Now! The Holroyd cites Up To Now in the bibliography and references Martin Shaw in the index on pp. 311-312, 313-14, 333-35, 347-48, 349-50, 353, 367, 370, 371-73, 377-79, 387. 390, 456, 464. The Kurth book also cites Up To Now in the bibliogrpahy and references Martin Shaw on these pages: 133, 137, 159-60, 177, 178, 192-93, 194, 203, 204, 207, 210 229, 230, 306. Prima facie, these books use Up To Now as a significant source and are therefore themselves sources within Wikipedia. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the page history you'll see that I've never edited this article. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you did delete the sources. You've just removed that. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So according to you I deleted the sources, removed those edits from the page history, and then came here to lie to you about it? I'm honestly not sure where to begin. Feezo (Talk) 07:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps TWSN doesn't know about reading article histories, he keeps saying people have made edits they haven't. You didn't remove the books that he calls sources although they aren't, they were removed by someone else with the edit summary "per messages TWSN has left on his talkpage, these are not sources ABOUT the book, merely other books that happen to cite it)".Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who removed those books. There's not much I can say that you didn't already quote just now. Time Will Say Nothing: read WP:CITE immediately and don't try to edit the article until you have understood our sourcing policy. Books that happen to cite this book as a source are not sources about this book. See, for example, Harvard Girl; none of those sources cite Harvard Girl as sources themselves, they are all articles about that book. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the sources and they contain no information about the book, just cite it in the bibliography; to that end they are not relevant references. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say you've reviewed the sources, you mean you've obtained copies of the books in question and read them? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

So I read this thing; I also read the article about the guy himself. Considering that both are rather short, wouldn't it be more fruitful to merge them? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree a merge would be appropriate; notability still hasn't been demonstrated for this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When I was editing this page yesterday morning, notability was raised and i answered it. Now the page has been so appallingly vandalised from what it was like yesterday, it may appear that notability is an issue. Martin Shaw is notable, therefore his autobiography is notable. That is a very simple and obvious connection. The book deals with notable persons which add to that. The page edit has not been finished yet, so the editor concerned is not in a position to say if it has notability or not. This is an example of disruptive tagging. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, strike the words "vandalism" and "disruptive" from your vocabulary for the next few weeks, it's getting — what was the word? — "vexacious". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN, read WP:What vandalism is not, unless you want to get an indefinite block for harrassing other editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not possible to assume good faith in your case, so I prefer not to comment directly on what you say. Please note, however, that your aggressive and abusive style of commenting has been referred as a complaint to Wikipedia. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty obvious merge. Autobiographies of notable people are not automatically notable. Unless actual sources can be found I don't see any reason not reduce this article to a short description on the main Shaw page. --Leivick (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because you don't know how the page is going to end up. You should not pre-judge the issue. Sources were posted and then removed by an editor, who then complained that there were no sources! Hilarious. I have put the sources back. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read this yet you refuse to, TWSN. Why will you not adhere to what is required for inclusion? We don't dump a list of sources in an article and tell the reader to figure it out. You need inline citations. Doc talk 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is harrassment. Note the under construction tag. Your post is premature and inappropriate in tone and content. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Premature"? Requiring inline citations around here will not change: your approach will, or you will be gone. Policy is policy. We all have to live by rules of some sort, even on WP. Doc talk 07:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not refuse to provide citations. i said your post about them was premature. That's because the article is tagged as under construction. You need to change your oppressive style. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(we can get back on track in the next section Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Notability and merge

There is a misunderstanding of our guidlines on notability here. It simply isn't the case that anything a notable person writes is notable in itself. And the fact that a book deals with notable people certainly doesn't make it notable. If you read WP:NBOOK you will find six criteria. If it meets one of these, fine. So far as I can see, it fails all of them. TWSN, which of them do you think it passes? Shaw isn't historicall significant enough so that anything he writes is notable. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - composer notable, his autobiography probably isn't. Rob (talk)
• Merge as suggested above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am now requesting for the page to be deleted, so there is no further issue here. The reason is that i cannot construct the page because it is subject to persistent disruptive editing and / or vandalism.Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Next time you deliberately misuse the word "vandalism" or any such accusation will result in escalating NPA-warnings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete

I am the author, or the main author of this page. Under criterion G7 it should be deleted if I request it. I requested it, using a speedy delete tag. This was arbitrarily denied by SarekOfVulcan with no reason given. Why? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many edits by other editors on the article and talkpage for G7 to apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of the edits have been disruptive and/or vandalism. I am the creator and constructor of this page. I am the sloe author of the text that remain on the page. I am no longer able to construct the page because I cannot do so without disruption or vandalism. Your refusal to grant me author rights over the remaining text is arbitrary and oppressive. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it's policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)