Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bret


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bret

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced for years, and back in 2008 and earlier, plagued by COI incidents by the article's subject. An edit request asking that a claim in the Life section be removed as it was unverifiable (Lecturing at University of Chicago) led me to try to find non-primary sources. In the end I found only his own page, a blog apparently written in opposition to him, a few publisher bios, and random reviews of some of his books. I couldn't find any sources specifically about him or even interviewing him, but searching on him is difficult due to having to weed out listings and store results for his books. Basic conclusion is that he fails WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried a few more search terms and did find an interview with him, but it was a Blogspot. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this article should totally deleted. I think if you trim out the unsourced information, you could cite a few book reviews and end up with enough for a stub. 128.135.100.109 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Those reviews might help establish notability for the books, but not the author. The author needs sources that discuss him directly and in detail to establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David Bret says: have to thought of contacting me, or one of my publishers such as JR Press, Biteback Publishing where there is a bio of me, or Dreamspinner Press where there is also a bio of me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * David, primary sources do not help in establishing notability. Secondary sources, independent of the subject, are required. Please read over WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David Bret: Then there's little more that I can say. You have my birth date, my marriage, the list of some books. Are you calling me a liar or saying that I do not exist. This is very strange. I never stated that I lectured at Chicago. Read something like Amazon and you'll see that I exist, as do my books. Remove my Wikipedia if you feel so prejudiced against me. I survived before it appeared and will do so afterwards. Who are these people from Chicago who complained about me? I did a sound and light for Rudolph Valentino at the Roosevelt Theatre in November 1998 where I discussed my opinion of his sexuality, and my life has been hell ever since from detractors. You appear to have joined the list where the former are concerned, if you are believing people from a Twitter site which only has 33 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * David, honestly I have no idea what you're talking about. I have linked you the policies that Wikipedia adheres to... I can understand that the subject of an article may feel offended if those policies suggest their article should be deleted, but I otherwise have no knowledge of you, what you may or may not have said, or of any Twitter site that is against you. I do not read Twitter. No one has called you a liar or suggested you do not exist. I once again suggest you read the general notability guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dependent Keep - If the list of books he has written is accurate, and if they were published by reputable publishing companies, then a way must be found to keep the article. Anyone who publishes that number of books (again, if they are legitimate in both senses) needs to have an article, as they are definitely notable BMK (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I spot checked his books. Many are published by Robson Press, which seems to be a legit publisher. but others are published by lulu.com, which is a self-publishing firm.  A few I saw were published by DaCapo, which, if it is the American firm, definitely is legitimate.  So it appears to be a mixed bag.  The list of books, however, is not complete: he appears to have published about twice as many books, at least per Bookfinder.  BMK (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's important to check who first published the books, not who currently publishes them It's not unusual for writers whose original publishers won't reprint OOP books to make them available through POD or via self-republishing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I was using Bookfinder to spot check, but I could have clicked on a reprint instead of the original edition. When I looked again (spot check) just now, with "First edition" checked, almost all of them were published by Robson, with one I saw by Carroll & Graf, which is very legit.  I don't know Robson, and I can't tell much from their website.  They certainly look like a legitimate publisher, and not a self-publishing firm. Until something else comes to light, I going to assume that they're legit. BMK (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't see anything offhand that makes him pass GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There is some suggestion that one of his works may meet GNG. Which work? The article could be renamed to that work and all of the unrelated content can be clipped.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then GNG needs to be changed to cover an author who publishes many books without being the subject of news coverage himself. (Again, if the conditions I reported above are met. BMK (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing GNG isn't a matter for an AFD with low participation. The number of books however shouldn't matter. The number of notable books would matter. Depending on the book, one book could make the author notable. "To kill a mockingbird" would be enough in itself to make Harper Lee notable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * keep I am as the same position as User:BMK - "Anyone who publishes that number of books (again, if they are legitimate in both senses) needs to have an article, as they are definitely notable" - this book review on the new york times is already significant enough reporting to suggest wider notability Govindaharihari (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Publishing lots of books does not indicate notability, not by WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, especially as none of the books themselves appear to be notable. In my eyes, the review you've linked doesn't contain any details about Bret, commenting almost entirely on the book, with a few minor mentions of other books. This particular source might lend some notability to his Gable biography, but not to him, in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. The article now cites New York Times Book Review coverage of the author, which is pretty much the gold standard for notability for American publishing. When will well-meaning editors here get it through their heads that superficial Google searches can be virtually useless in assessing notability of most books and authors? There's still n book AFD open, I believe, where nobody had noticed that the author had won a Pulitzer Prize and the book got a multipage review in the NYT. This foolishness has to change. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the review is coverage of the book, not the author. If you feel the book is notable, that's a separate topic. Do you have any offline sources to put forward that help establish notability of the author? -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And, again, you're just dead wrong. Creative professionals generally derive their notability from their creative work. There is no rational or principled way to separate the two. When Meryl Streep's performance in a film is reviewed, no reasonable person says "That won't make her notable, just her work". Are you going to argue next that the Kronos Quartet isn't notable? After all, the coverage there is virtually entirely about their work. This blockheaded anti-intellectual attitude that too many editors have that you need celebrity-mode personal life coverage to be notable is amazingly wrongheaded and contrary to the legitimate mission of an encyclopedia. Note that the article on Aeschylus accurately reports there are no reliable sources regarding his life. Just his work. Why don't you put him up for deletion, too? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you try to stay civil. A quick review of Kronos Quartet shows several sources that discuss them directly. As for Aeschylus, that sentence should be removed, or changed to state "no contemporary sources", as the entirety of the rest of the section and the personal life section that follows uses 10 or so sources. "Celebrity-mode personal life" coverage isn't what I want to see, but anything that discusses him directly as an author, rather than in passing as part of a review for his book. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that discussion of a creative professional's creative work does not "discuss them directly", then I see no hope for you. It is an attitude almost uniquely confined to attempts to trivialize academics and writers. It is a stupid attitude when damages the encyclopedic value of the Wikipedia project. It is part of a general mode of evaluating significance that leads us to have more in-depth, detailed coverage of the typical Kardashian than of every Nobel Prize winner. Kim Kardashian's article is now about 68K long. Dante Alighieri's is barely 40K. That's where your approach takes us. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My view point is to try to follow WP:V and WP:N. AFD is ultimately about evaluating notability, not content or length. I think it's clear that I do not believe David Bret's notability has been established according to policy. As for the rest, I happen to agree with you about Kardashian's and the like, compared to academics, but sometimes there's simply nothing further to say on a topic. It does not indicate more notability or less, simply less verifiable facts available. Of course, 98% of verifiable facts for Kardashian's and the like are trivial unimportant drivel, but I don't think either of us would be successful in an attempt to cull it down. -- ferret (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just going to interject to associate myself with all that HW said. Ferret, you're on the wrong track. for a writer, their work is what's important, not if People magazine or Page 6 covers scandals about their personal life. BMK (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If he's a Pulitzer winner it stands to reason that he is notable. Can you share a source thats shows he won the Pulitzer? A book can be notable without providing it's author notability. They have to meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR which they can meet by one book or fail to meet by one book. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I may not have been as clear as I could have been about the Pulitzer issue; that's involved in this AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla), where you can also see me try to do a faux-Jon-Stewart-rant without warming up enough. What the AFDs had in common was that the noms didn't turn up NYTimes reviews before starting the deletion discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not plan to comment further on this AFD, as I do not see any productive value in continuing borderline uncivil discussions. I believe my position is clearly and well stated, and leave it to the closer to make a decision on whether it holds water. -- ferret (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing uncivil in an editor telling you forcefully, and with reasoned arguments, that you are wrong. "Civility" doesn't mean holding your hand and petting it during a discussion. Grow up, please.BMK (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Authors are notable because of their work, as artists for their art, scientists for their discoveries, etc. The routine fats of their life are not what makes someone notable. HW has it exactly right.  DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per, and  above. I am engaged in adding sources. At the moment there are nine citations, all to significant reliable publications. I expect there to be several more before I am done. It was claimed above that Bret did not meet WP:AUTHOR. Well point 3 of that guideline says: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I contend that Bret clearly meets the "significant collective body of work" standard, and that reviews of individual works help to establish this. Therefore I reject 's contention that reviews of Bret's books are irrelevant, and I feel that the Delete !votes based on that contention above should be given low weight as not correctly based on policy. A review of a single book might say nothing about the notability of an author. But when that author writes book after book, and those books are consistently taken notice of by being reviewed in major publications such as Kirkus, The Telegraph, The Independent, Publisher's Weekly, and the New York Times, that shows that the body of work and therefore the author is notable, even if no other coverage is available. DES (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepCertainly merits a keep vote as pointed out above, meeting the Criteria of WP:AUTHOR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are now 19 citations to reliable sources. I am in the process of adding OCLC cites for the various books. These verify the publication information, and also provide information on the library holdings of each title. So far each has been held by several hundred libraries who report to OCLC, which not all libraries do. Note that libraries very rarely acquire self-published or vanity press books. DES (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've used Brets books on at least two three FAs (Hattie Jacques, John Le Mesurier and George Formby) and have his work on Rudolph Valentino for a future update. These are all reliable sources and have been checked as such as part of the FAC, as they are from reputable publishers. – SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.