Talk:Don Bendell

references to LT, PW, etc.

I suggest that references to LibraryThing, Publisher's Weekly, and other such bibliographic tools be removed as not indicating notability. PW lists everything published, LT lists anything that ANYONE inputs (which could be the author). These are similar to listing Amazon as a source. Sources should be indicative of some intellectual pronouncement, not just anything bibliographic. LaMona (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no LibraryThing ref in the article.. PW is selective and doesn't review everything published, maybe 1% in that range. Most books are never reviewed I believe only about 10% of books published ever get a professional review. -- GreenC 23:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Granted, PW does not review everything - but it is a trade publication, not an academic publication. I do think it reviews much more than 1%, but I'll try to find out. But brief reviews supporting sales are not a sign of notability. I'm not sure what you mean by a "professional" review. I would consider a NYTimes review to indicate some notability, although only a NYT review may not be enough. Also, the review may say that the book is horrible. I'd be looking for additional reviews in NY Review of Books, Atlantic, New Yorker, etc. And a review by a notable author, rather than a journalistic review, would hold more weight. Articles in academic journals would be gold.LaMona (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

From the WP article on Publishers Weekly: "The book review section, not added until the early 1940s, grew in importance over the past half-century, and it currently offers opinions on 7,000 new books each year. Since reviews are scheduled to appear one month or two months prior to the publication date of a book, books already in print are seldom reviewed. These anonymous reviews are short, often no more than 220 words, and the review section can be as long as 40 pages, filling the second half of the magazine." 7,000 a year! And no more than 220 words. I would say that PW does very, very little to establish notability.LaMona (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here ("indicate some notability" .. "very little to establish notability") but if your intention is to nominate this article for deletion than go ahead, but PW is a reliable source we use on Wikipedia by common consensus. -- GreenC 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there isn't consensus on PW: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)/Archive_3#Suggestions_for_further_improvement. There are many authors on WP that have dubious notability. I'm going to chat with some folks about an approach, especially for stubs. LaMona (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Autobiography Page Violates Conflict-of-Interest Rules

Recommend this page for deletion, as it was originally created by the subject of the article (User: Donbendell) in 2012, who remains the primary contributor and editor up to September 2023. The tone and content violates neutral point of view principles and is a BLP subject writing and editing his own BLP. 2600:4040:25B7:C700:9075:3B5C:8A06:9EE9 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been actively involved since day 1 and watching it. The topic is notable. If I were to rewrite it from scratch it would probably look pretty similar. I understand folks dislike it when the subject of a BLP is also the creator of the page and a contributor. It's not ideal. But there are no rules against it. You say it violates COI, how so? Please quote the violation. So long as they are cooperative and follow WP:COI. -- GreenC 16:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)