Talk:Lyn Murray
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Split
[edit]Since there are already many links to this page referring to the composer, it would probably be best to create a new page Lyn Murray (writer) for the writer. --Deskford (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- David Eppstein has removed the recent additions about the writer, reverting this page to cover just the composer - undoubtedly the right thing to do, but bolder than me! The question remains as to whether the author also merits a page in her own right. --Deskford (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, on first glance it seemed a separate article for the namesake might be sensible—though as a BLP it would need good references. A closer look shows the addition was purely promotional. The non-autoconfirmed user added the same book title to Documentation, and elsewhere. The non-referenced unencyclopedic content about the author was inserted to promote the book, which an external link the user included shows it's published through Tate Publishing & Enterprises, a publisher that operates on the vanity-press model. –Whitehorse1 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to concur with your judgement - the new material did sound self-promotional and unencyclopedic in tone. --Deskford (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, on first glance it seemed a separate article for the namesake might be sensible—though as a BLP it would need good references. A closer look shows the addition was purely promotional. The non-autoconfirmed user added the same book title to Documentation, and elsewhere. The non-referenced unencyclopedic content about the author was inserted to promote the book, which an external link the user included shows it's published through Tate Publishing & Enterprises, a publisher that operates on the vanity-press model. –Whitehorse1 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- My guess was that a new article based on the added text would have been eligible for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, so no point splitting it out. I found this page because the same IP editor was trying to remove the "vanity press" information from the Tate Publishing article, btw. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)