Talk:Sarah Bakewell

Reliable sources
I have gutted this article because most of it is promotion and unsourced. Please do not re-add the material without providing sources. Also, please do no add promotional external links to the body of the article. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree with this approach. Granted the article named the subject's website as a source (so the source wasn't good), but the article also listed a book review in the New York Times, which has also been cynically deleted. The remaining Guardian link contains a review by The Guardian of the same book. Bakewell is very likely to meet WP:AUTHOR on that basis. I am reverting the unnecessary deletion (which was completely out-of-scale to the problem) and removing the innaccurate 'unreferenced' tag. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How does one review satisfy WP:AUTHOR? The guideline states that the subject should have created a work which has been the subject of "multiple articles or reviews". Your reversion reintroduced a load of promotional material. I find it a tad hypocritical for you to call my approach heavy handed when you can't be bothered to sort out any of the problems yourself past hitting the big "revert" button. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not 'hit the revert button'. I did not add 'cruft'. Which sentences were 'cruft'? Your actions amount to vandalism and are unhelpful. Read the references. There were two online reviews of Bakewell's book in well-respected newspapers, the review in the NYT described the book as widely reviewed to critical acclaim (or similar description). Please let the AfD decide the outcome of this article and not take the decision into your own hands. Sionk (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, some examples of cruft you reintroduced would include: claims about an award her book apparently won, without sourcing it at all; reintroducing external links into the body (see WP:External links); reverting a whole paragraph sourced to her own website (see WP:NOTRS); trying to make this harder to criticise by using another source which does meet WP:RS, but doesn't actually back up the claim it's attached to; etc. etc. Try to take some more care before hitting "rollback" next time. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We obviously have a different interpretation of 'cruft'. True, a few things on Wikipedia need to be deleted on sight. Plausible claims to notability don't fall into that category. Why not leave a 'citation needed' tag and help the author improve the article? The claim that her book was a winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award is something that needs to be investigated and sourced, but not deleted on sight. The NYT article verifies a lot of biographical information (which you deleted again), such as her education and employment history. Sionk (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarah Bakewell.jpg