Talk:Fredrik Stanton

\

Chapter summary...
User:Tenebrae removed the chapter summary listing. I reinserted it. WP:PLOT gives some information about summarizing books. I feel that this table is a reasonable presentation at summarizing the content of this book. Tenebrae is correct in saying in the edit history that this article is about an author and not a book, but the alternative is to have separate stub articles for the book and the author or to move this biography to an article on the book, which I think is less useful.

The precedent on English Wikipedia is to accept a short but thorough summary of the contents of books. See Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone for an example in fiction. It is correct that few people write summaries of nonfiction books, but I feel that this is useful.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   09:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're misconstruing. The example is you give is an article about the book itself &mdash; we don't give the book's plot in the article J. K. Rowling.


 * If the book isn't notable enough to have its own article, that should say something about the appropriateness of making an end run and creating a stub article here. This is promotional and undue weight. If you disagree, I think the next step is mediation or an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel that seeking mediation or starting an RfC is best then I encourage you checking in with those communities, but I do not feel that those are good starts to a discussion. Please talk with me a bit more.
 * The book has three reviews cited. To what extent do you feel that it meets Wikipedia notability criteria? How would you feel about changing the title of this article from "Fredrik Stanton" to "Great Negotiations?" The book is more covered than this author is, and indeed, practically all authors are less notable and less discussed than their works.
 * I just added some more information about Stanton's movie. How would you feel about turning this one article into three articles - one biography and then an article each for the book and movie, just with the information here? I feel that it is most useful to have author, book, and movie described here in one article because this article is already a stub, and I see no reason to turn it into multiple stubs. Thoughts? I would like to replace the summary of the book either here or on an article for the book, assuming that the book meets Wikipedia notability criteria.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I woud have no objection to your creating three articles and letting the community decide on notability. Personally, I think the book can sustain its own article, although the information being presented in the table format would best be presented as prose text, which is the preferable format for anything that isn't discrete quantifiable data.


 * Stanton seems absolutely notable as an author and filmmaker, so I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that as a subject he should have his own article.


 * I would also argue in favor of the movie having its own article, as it appears to have been reviewed in significant publications, played in (a) film festival(s), etc.


 * In fact, I think we agree completely on notability. My only issues are format and appropriate location. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I just found time to create Great Negotiations: Agreements that Changed the Modern World. I also converted the table there to prose. I am not planning to develop this further at this time.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)