Alberto Monteiro wrote: > David Hobby wrote: > >> So the user is "Abductive", and he seems to spend a lot >> of time proposing articles for deletion. >> >> > It's probably an "attack account": a sock puppet of a known > user, created to give anonimity to a coward behavior (if it > used the _real_ account, we might retaliate by proposing for > deletion _its_ articles!). > > In the Portuguese wikipedia those trolls are severely > repressed; one editor who abused sock-puppeteering was > banned until after 2012-12-21. > > >> If we want the articles to stay up on Wikipedia, the >> best defense is references to them in books not written >> by David Brin. Does anybody know any? >> >> > Probably some science fiction magazines have material about > Brin's characters, races, etc. Also, there's GURPS Uplift, > who is _not_ by Him. > > (and I still think Category should not be in the magma table!!!) > > Alberto Monteiro > > > _______________________________________________ > http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > > > All of which does not change the fact that Abductive is correct. The articles previously mentioned in this family of threads simply do not meet en-Wikipedia's notablity guidelines.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29 gives: *This page in a nutshell:* A book is generally notable if it verifiably <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V> meets through reliable sources <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>, *one* or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject^[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-subject-0> of multiple, non-trivial^[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-nontrivial-1> published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,^[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-independent-2> with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PLOT>. * The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.^[4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-selfpromotion-3> 2. The book has won a major literary award <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Literary_awards>. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities /or/ post-graduate programs in any particular country.^[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-textbooks-4> 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.^[6] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#cite_note-study-5> And Derivative articles Shortcut <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Shortcut>: WP:BKD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BKD> It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do, of course, exist—especially in the case of very famous books. For example few would argue that Charles Dickens <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens>' /A Christmas Carol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol>/ does not warrant a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Scrooge>. In some situations, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book. ---------------------------------------- So there would seem to be a hierarchy acceptable to en-Wikipedia's content guidelines. Article/biography on David Brin preferably written by an objective party. Uplift universe Section on Brightness Reef Universe Section on Jijo Universe. NOTABLE books by David Brin. David Brin's contribution to the concept of uplift. All "trivia" -- characters, places, races, star ships -- rolled up under either the article on a book or an article on the uplift universe. You will loose a lot of information this way as sizable articles get reduced to three sentences in an annotated list of trivia. I have worked with Wikimedia before. The believe (but I am not certain) the admins can extract articles complete with history, et cetera. I would inform the Wikipedia admins that you represent a community of David Brin fans and you want to move content to a new MediaWiki based site with a compatible Creative Commons license that _likes_ science fiction trivia. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
