Talk:Up to Now (autobiography)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Up to Now (autobiography) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

In reply to TWSN's comment "Martin Shaw is notable, therefore his autobiography is notable", as I have previously said to you, WP:N states that notability is NOT inherited. Further, I've never agreed with you that the autobiography is notable, so please quit saying I did. I said it MAY be notable but the other articles you created from exerpts in the book certainly are not. I had no opinion on the autobiography itself at the time and I was not going to pass judgement on it. Again, please quit citing me as confirming the notability, it never happened.--v/r - T P 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep. Rob (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have not deliberately misused the word "vandalism". You are one of those who have committed the vandalism. It is not appropriate for you try and be judge and jury with respect to an allegation made against you. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show an edit in history which you consider vandalism, keeping in mind the definition at WP:VANDAL; I searched, and fail to see any evidence of vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stand-alone article ~~Merge to Martin Shaw (composer) without redirect.~~ (See my comments below) At the moment, there really isn't enough notability for a stand-alone article, although it would be a useful addition in its own section in the article about the author. There is room for slight expansion if editors can get access to the following journals. It was apparently reviewed in The Musical Times, Oct. 1, 1929, vol. 70, no. 1040, p. 897-898 and Theatre Arts Monthly, Volume 14, 1930, p. 89 ("This is an entertaining little autobiography, ambling and inconsequent, full of revealing anecdotes about other interesting people..."). It was also adapted into a 45-minute play by Robert Shaw and performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2010 although the reviews were not favourable [2], [3], [4].
I would not recommend re-directing unless the article title is changed. Al Smith's autobiograpy published the same year by Viking Press has the same title and is far more notable in terms of citations, coverage, and library holdings: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've managed to get hold of more reviews and have pretty much re-written and restructured the article. I now think there's enough there to establish notability for a stand-alone article with definite scope for expansion for an editor with full access to The Musical Times and to the book itself. Comments? Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stand-alone article The way I read the outcome of the recent AfD discussion there is a consensus for this. Propose closing the discussion. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - now that it's virtually a new article, it looks good enough to be kept separate. For expanding it, I suppose a few choice quotes from the reviews of Robert Shaw's Edinburgh play could be included? Rob (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Disambiguation

More than one page called Up To Now. Needs a Disambiguation page. 82.132.248.84 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it doesn't need disambiguation as Up to Now (autobiography) simply redirects to this one. I imagine that the administrator who moved it [9] has left the redirect in place until the AfD for this article is closed. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding here, I think. Needs disambiguation from Up To Now! Edinburgh ref is venue listing (with blurb), therefore also confirmation. Review is of production - how it works as a monologue on stage - not a fair assessment of the book. 82.132.248.17 (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. I've added dismbiguation hatnotes to both pages. A separate disambiguation page is not needed for only two articles with similar names. Re the reference, the one which which you removed was from a published review which verifies that the adaptation was actually produced and sufficiently notable to be reviewed by an independent source. The one you replaced it with is an advertising blurb, not normally considered a reliable source, especially in terms of verifying notability. A performed stage work based on the book significantly adds to the claims for notability of the book itself. If you think the one you added has extra significant information about the book, keep it, but then I would strongly recommend having both references. The fact that the review of the adaptation was a negative one, is neither here nor there in terms of its use for verification of performance and the adaptation's notability (unfortunately all three reviews I found were negative ones). Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to agree with you and restore the review. Unfortunately, another editor decided to revert and delete my reference without any discussion. The comment left on the revision history seems disappointingly illiterate. But I'm happy to leave it like this. 82.132.139.132 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing "illiterate" about that editor's summary, apart from lack of capitals—these are quick edit summaries not essays. Comments like that are unhelpful and inappropriate. I suggest you refrain from making them in future. I have re-added the blurb in an External links section where it is more appropriate than as a reference. Voceditenore (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Yes, inside.plus.com defaults to inside-intelligence.org.uk but they are different SITES because they have different NAMES? Surely you can see that? If not, why not just assume good faith and accept it anyway? Also, please try to let this one go? Thanks. 82.132.248.69 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editors are not allowed to evade their blocks by using IP proxies. See WP:SOCK for more information on this. Doc talk 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical perspective, no they are not different sites :) they are identical. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not a blocked editor. Errant, I entirely see your point. But from the perspective of how they are perceived publicly, they are different sites. If Up To Now were on the Inside Intelligence site, the URL would be inside-intelligence.org.uk/Up%20To%20Now.html. Yes? 82.132.248.69 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A url which works :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... The intention is to keep them separate. Need to look for another answer to this. Thanks. 82.132.248.69 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

I'm going to remove the {{COI}} from the article. It has been extensively edited, referenced and re-written, and the tag would only be applicable/justified if a conflict of interest were currrently affecting the article's content. I don't believe it is. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to Now (autobiography) has been closed as "Keep", and the actions of the COI editor in nominating it for deletion on spurious grounds of "vandalism" and his "rights" as the author are no longer relevant either. Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about removal of references to Inside Intelligence

I'm a bit puzzled by this edit. What's the reason for removing this material? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion on Talk:Martin Shaw (composer), I believe he deleted that because he thought Robert Shaw was inserting inappropriate promotional material. I don't have a huge problem with leaving it in, but I see where he's coming from. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, totally understandable (for some reason that page wasn't on my watchlist as well, so I'd missed the new developments there.) I'm going to put those sections back in, as I think if the book is notable then a one-sentence mention of an adaptation of it is justifiable, and it's entirely reasonable to link to somewhere people can read extracts of the book if they so wish. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Voceditenore. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was he one who had originally referenced and copyedited the addition. It's valid and useful content for the article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]