Talk:Abominable Firebug

Conflict of interest?
I wrote this article. I emailed User:LymanSchool about getting a picture of the book. He told me to not bother to write the article because an administrator would delete it as a copyright infringement as he had done for other articles that had either written or contributed to. I told him that the reason why I needed him to upload a picture was so that there would be no copyright issues with the picture that he owns. So, he uploaded the picture and then the ONLY thing that he did was to add the pix size that I forgot. That hardly qualifies as "substantantially contributed to" as shown in the tag that User:centrx added. N26825 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If in fact you do not have a pre-existing relationship with the author of the book, the article is nevertheless written like a glowing promotional piece, and refers to information that was at best obtained from the book jacket, if not from communications the author himself. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was written from information contained in the book. It is after all a book report! Anybody who reads the book will obtain the same information, perhaps more. Did you actually read the article?N26825 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not collection of book reports. Only one part of an article on a book belongs as a plot summary. Regardless, sentences like "The book is significant because it details the day-to-day life of inmates in America’s first"; "The book also details some of the many problems"; "This book demonstrates the value of mentors"; are not plain neutral descriptions of the contents of the book. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But the Lyman School was America's first reform school! And it does detail the activities within that school from the perspective of some youngster who actually liked it! It is truly unique. The book also demonstrates a lot of things. I am reporting from a very neutral point of view because I am reporting what I read. I truly don't understand. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point.N26825 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability
The book is certainly notable for the reasons shown in the article. Again, it appears as though User:centrx has some problem with the author, User:LymanSchool that he has been carrying on for over a year. Perhaps he has a conflict of interest? Maybe one of his family members was one of the Masters in the book? N26825 21:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the book is notable, then there should be no difficulty in finding independent published sources that are focussed on the book. Verifiability is a related issue. As far as I can tell, it is a self-published book about which I can find no reliable sources whatsoever online, and the article also contains no sources whatsoever about the book. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are, today, 808 references in google from the quoted string "Abominable Firebug." //Results 1 - 10 of about 808 for "Abominable Firebug". (0.18 seconds// Eliminating the adversisements, brings up sixteen reviews. I did not see many reviews shown in other book articles because, in fact, they represent promotion. Should I include links to these reviews? N26825 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actual reviews are not promotion. What you mean here by "reviews" are the promotional descriptions given on sales sites like Amazon.com, which are not published third-party sources and do not attest to notability. If a "review" is promotional in nature, it is not a reliable source. A reliable source is one where there would be no problem in using it as a source for the article. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some reviews that are available on the web. N26825 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AbominableFirebug.jpg
Image:AbominableFirebug.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)