Talk:Matt Beaumont

Notable?
His E is handled by Amazon, but GTest is
 * 100 of about 128 for "Matt Beaumont" "E: A Novel"

and may not be notable at this time. (Note that "at this time" is all that matters, and even if it were going to be more notable, it should be by now, having come out in 2000.) I'm ProD-tagging the accompanying bio (not being sure enuf to see the technically sufficient speedy
 * A7, bio w/o claim of notability

as adequate consideration of his possible notability), and it should certainly undergo AfD if the Prod tag is removed without a substantial defense of retention. --Jerzy•t 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why a novelist who has published (published, not self-published) five (five!) novels should not be "notable" I don't know. If I had thought so, I wouldn't have created this stub.


 * I can only speculate on possible misconceptions at the basis of a deletion proposal such as the above: (a) Although I've tried hard, I wasn't really able to find out the year Beaumont was born, which may throw a suspicious light on the person as a whole; or (b), even more ridiculous, the person suggesting a deletion assumes that only people they have heard of are notable.


 * However, I've tried to link up the narrative technique of his first (epistolary) novel with that tradition and also emphasised the fact that the novel constitutes a new development in epistolary novel writing, ie the switch from letter to e-mail.


 * I know that comparisons with other biographies are discouraged here at Wikipedia (the other day I was referred to an official policy called "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" or something like that), but I would still like to draw your attention to other "young" British novelists such as William Sutcliffe or, in particular, Marina Lewycka, who, although over 60, only published her first novel in 2005. Is her biography less contentious just because of the unusual title of her novel? Where's the difference?


 * The template on the Matt Beaumont page actually begs to be removed. I'll do so now, but as I can see the next step will be a "proper" AfD. This is strange. Really strange. &lt;KF&gt; 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * KF, indeed published x5 is more notable than published once, but there are niche markets that can make n-n publishing economical. E.g., i expect that few authors w/ 5 books on beekeeping, and nothing else, are notable. Niche markets are probably harder to identify and exploit in fiction, but if only a small coterie read his novels, he's non-notable, and the GTest results suggest that. I have seen "Amazon sales rank" used as a surrogate for sales figures in, IIRC, not only book AfDs but also bio ones, but i don't know where to find that info, nor how many digits in the rank suggest n-n. Do you want some time to bone up on the topic and perhaps head off AfD? That (a perfect example of "substantial defense of retention") would, IMO, be a better next step. --Jerzy•t 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Notability (people) says "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" is a criterion of notability, ie inclusion. It shouldn't be a problem, if necessary, to come up with "multiple independent reviews". Also, I do not believe that HarperCollins is a publishing house which is interested in niche markets. I don't know into how many languages e was translated, but there certainly is a German version (E-Mail an alle), and, again, Ullstein is a mainstream publisher.
 * (2) I'm not quite sure what the "GTest" is. Google Test? If so, I don't understand what you say it suggests.
 * (3) As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing there to be added unless I write, or rather e-mail, the author and ask him for personal details. However, Matt Beaumont is not a friend of mine, I have never seen him (not even on television or in a picture, at least I don't remember), and I admit I haven't even read e [1]. But people I know have, even in Austria (he's got his own stub in the German Wikipedia), and they have told me about the book. So again, there isn't anything more I can do, so please go ahead with your AfD if you're set on doing so. &lt;KF&gt; 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * [1] Well, I have now. &lt;KF&gt; 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In contrast to the original result, i found
 * 448 of about 40,100 for "Matt Beaumont" OR "Matthew Beaumont" E OR "The Book, the Film, the T-shirt" OR "Staying Alive" OR "Good Fella " OR "Where There's a Will ".
 * which suggests (as some thought, and reference to what i wrote you, on yr tk, re GTests, will show you) that that combination suggests comparison against "100 of about 128" as follows:
 * 45% and 40K vs. 78% and 128
 * which makes him appear at least 20 times as notable, and suggests at least one of these three:
 * title of the bio must be Matthew Beaumont, or
 * title of his first book's article must remain as it is, not "E: A Novel" (which apparently belongs only to the paperback -- i must have taken it from some place like the ext lks section), or
 * the article is mistaken in its emphasis on e.
 * --Jerzy•t 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced"?
Sources/references I can offer straight away:


 * Beaumont's web site, which offers a list of his publications and the fact that he is married with two children (already linked, s.v. "External links")
 * The Wikipedia article on Jamie Kane, with 18 items under "References" (should I copy them?)
 * e, which is (a) comic and (b) epistolary
 * amazon's search results
 * Barry Forshaw writing that "the idea of the first e-mail novel could have been a disaster but instead is a minor comic triumph." (Note that I modified that a bit because (a) I'm not so sure whether Forshaw is telling the truth or exaggerating / advertising the novel and (b) User:68.226.91.222 claimed here that Carl Steadman had written an "e-mail novel" in 1994 and I did not want to contradict them.)

What I cannot provide:


 * Beaumont's birth or marriage certificates (If I could, I would already have added his date & place of birth)

So what exactly would you like me to do?

Any more tags anybody? NPOV? Copyvio? No global perspective? &lt;KF&gt; 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry in advance if you feel anyone is having a go at you - that's certainly not our intention. Everyone is actively encouraged to contribute to wikipedia, but only within the policies that have been agreed. Important here are:


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V)
 * "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources"
 * "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (WP:RS)


 * The only source mentioned is a self-puiblished source - his personal website. Has anyone else published a profile about him? If so, this would be a better source. If not, you start to question whether he is notable enough to have an article. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added some references although I still consider having to prove the notability of a bestselling author a rather silly thing to do. All that fuss about the BBC allegedly using Wikipedia as a marketing tool for Jamie Kane should have made him notable enough.


 * Why, of late, individuals discussing matters with me refer to themselves as "we" * I don't know.


 * As far as "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources" is concerned, this seems like a classic case of here. Also, is it really "should contain"?


 * Anyway, let's see if Beaumont's notability increases once one of his books has been shortlisted for the Ronald McDonald Prize. &lt;KF&gt; 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. The reason I mentioned "our" is because I noticed others above had also questioned this article. I was responding to the tone of your comment ("Any more tags anybody"). I don't understand your point with . AndrewRT(Talk) 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V)
 * "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources"
 * "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (WP:RS)
 * You referred to the source of the first and the third quotes, but not the second. Honestly, trying to scan all those policy pages for the piece of information you want and having to distinguish at the same time whether what you are reading is an official policy, a proposal for a new policy, a personal opinion, or even a no-no is quite time-consuming and often inefficient. &lt;KF&gt; 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Having just read the article on Kim Kardashian (and seen the vast majority of "Keep" votes in the AfD) makes me wonder even more how many parallel policies there are. I guess if Matt Beaumont were in that sex video he'd have no problems here at Wikipedia. &lt;KF&gt; 17:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The second quote is also from WP:V - in the nutshell. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. &lt;KF&gt; 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Matt Beaumont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070803071640/http://www.deaddrop.us/modules.php?name=News to http://www.deaddrop.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=214

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)