Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Turnbull (author)


 * 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   delete. Those favoring retention of the article primarily focused on the subject's opinion being offered as expert commentary in the online article. Those favoring deletion noted a lack of the indicia of notability that are accepted under the applicable notability guideline. The deletion position is more compliant with existing site policy/guidelines, and the "keep" camp has not shown a nexus between commentary and lasting notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Doug Turnbull (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY Self-published author lacking in significant sales or coverage. Closest to notable coverage listed is the NBC News link, but that's them talking to him about Mars, not talking about him. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

- Reasons why the article should be kept:

Consultation as an expert testimony on an issue in a national news coverage media venue, denotes professional status and subject expertise. The individual is also noted as an educator and radio talk show host in addition to being an author Bides time (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC). In the recorded interview (available online), the author is being interviewed about his science fiction books and the subject matter discussed in them (Mars colonization).Bides time (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The author is being interviewed about his science fiction writing as shown in some of these excerpts from the interview. (For the full interview, see Alan Boyle: Curiosity on Mars.

Boyle: "Doug, does a lot of work, as I said, with science fact as well as science fiction, and that is always an interesting intersection for us."

Boyle: "Do you have any more grist for maybe some future science fiction stories from what's been found already? How are your gears turning when you think about what new discoveries of Mars mean for better or more compelling science fiction?"

Turnbull: "Well I try to keep my stories as closely related to the science as it's understood today as possible, and every little fact that they glean is helpful in creating a new story...To have the actual physical samples to tell us whether or not the soil has phosphates in it and things like that, all of which would be critical if you were going to have a settlement on Mars. In fact, that's the theme of most of my stories. Is the soil going to be at all useful for farming, for example. [Must] you have a greenhouse where you have to grow everything hydroponically or can you actually use some of the Martian soil and grow the same sorts of plants that we grow here on Earth? Those are all facts that Curiosity and the folks there at NASA JPL are discovering every day."

Boyle: "That's a good point. That the reality of planetary exploration can trumph the fantasy that we have about what Mars or other planets are like. You know, I'm thinking of the John Carter on Mars stories that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote and these fanciful views of Mars that seem so old fashioned nowadays. It kind of now strains plausibility nowadays to read those stories that they really aren't talking about a real Mars. They are talking about fantastical planets that carry the same name. Do you feel as if as we learn more about other planets that they get more boring as a focus for a work of science fiction?"

Specific habitats and issues are discussed such as the availability of water and sources of habitats such as lava tubes, of which Turbull replies with a similar example from the settings of his stories where colonists live in caves, and why this is important for the health of astronauts and a feasible solution financially.

Boyle: "When you look back at your stories are there things that you are kind of proud of as anticipating what the reality is on Mars or are there things that you wrote that you thought for sure this is the way it is and then it turned out that it was totally wrong?"

Bides time (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this podcast a notable indicator of significance? Does this make him meet WP:AUTHOR guidelines? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

-


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: to me, the sources' high reputation and notability outweigh their limited, but existent, attention to him as an author. Tezero (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources do we have indicating his "high reputation and notability"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not his; the sources have them. I'm not slavishly devout to NBC or the Library of Congress, but I generally trust them and so do millions of others. Tezero (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Library of Congress" reference only shows that he registered a copyright, something anyone could do. It is not an indication of any relationship or belief from the LOC beyond that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, and as best as I can tell, that "NBC" interview isn't actually an NBC interview; it's something that someonefroom NBC did off-site, and linked to from the NBC page. I see no sign that Virtually Speaking is an NBC project, and the interview's page at Blog Talk Radio does not mention NBC. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

KEEP - I am the Producer of Virtually Speaking Science, which has three regular hosts. Alan Boyle is the Science Editor for NBC Digital. His blog is CosmicLog on the NBC site. He participate with the approval of NBC and links to his interviews on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtually-speaking-science. The two sites are linked but not the same entity. See this VSS website: "Virtually Speaking Science Informal conversations hosted by science writers Alan Boyle, Tom Levenson and Jennifer Ouellette, who explore the often-volatile landscape of science, politics and policy, the history and economics of science, science" http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtually-speaking-science. In addition to the source cited in the article (Boyle, Alan. "Relive Curiosity rover's triumphs ... and find out what's next on Mars." NBC News. August 7, 2013. Accessed August 10, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/relive-curiosity-rovers-triumphs-find-out-whats-next-mars-6C10871874), this website explains Boyle's relationship to NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10912485/ns/technology_and_science/t/alan-boyle/#.UgvN3pK1G3E. Again, the sites are linked, but they are different, and that counts as two different external sources for notability. --Sherry Reson (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the NBC mention conveys no notability; it is only a passing mention (half a sentence is about Turnbull) in the form of an event listing. This gets discussed (in the context of musicians) at WP:BAND on the things that don't count: "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with her reasons, her vote still counts.Bides time (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I realize that we have a number of editors here with apparently limited Wikipedia editing experience or limited AFD-involvement expeerience. I encouraged them to review WP:AFDEQ, where they will find (among other things) that this is not a voting situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete writers whose work is primarily self-published or vanity-published are rarely notable. No indication he passes WP:AUTHOR.  I also strongly suspect a Spam/COI issue as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Self publishing by itself should not be a condemnation of notability. See: Self_publishing.Bides time (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's misleading bordering on outright bullshit. If you actually look at that list nearly everything on it was eventially picked up by real, respected publishers.  And don't start on Poe or Dickens either, because we all know self-financing books 200 years ago is extremely different from today's vanity-press tactics.  Also, I notice you didn't even try to deny the Spam/COI issue. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Lenahan, there is no need for profanity WP:CIVIL, and trying to get me to reveal personal information about my identity WP:OUTING is not going to work.


 * Well, he's right the self-publishing in itself is not a condemnation of notability, and I can point to a certain number of current authors, particularly in the comics realm, whose notability was quite sufficiently achieved through material they self-published and the recognition they received for that material. However, merely having a bunch of self-published books establishes nothing in terms of notability or recognition, all it means is that you recognize yourself. However, your use of the term "rarely" is appropriate, particularly considering the mass of authors self-publishing today, and your call that he meet WP:AUTHOR, if the books are his source of notability, is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Upgrading to strong delete. Spam confirmed, any benefit of the doubt is gone at this point. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Why? When one is consulted as an expert in the field, any field. One becomes noteworthy. This is regardless of the opinions of others over whom is more or less note worthy. We are human beings and this person rose above the rest to be asked for his opinion by the press on a matter of scientific knowledge. He meets the criteria  as he is cited in multiple  places for his expertise.  Thanks!  Ali-sama (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all of us will be quoted in the newspaper at some point, for witnessing the crime, for having a reaction to the parade, whatever. That does not make us sufficiently noteworthy. There is very little here in the way of folks referencing his expertise. Please check the appropriate notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no significant coverage about Turnbull in independent reliable sources. Being a self-published author does not bar Turnbull from meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  However, as an author (self-published or otherwise), an article is only justified if WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR is met and fail to see how either guideline has been met in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Strong case for lack of notability made by Nat Gertler. Strong suspicion of COI as well StuartDouglas (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a signed review of his book Footprints in Red and added it to the article. There may be more things in print versions not available online, but I have not had time to look for them.Bides time (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Only only book in worldcat, and that one  is only in a single local library. Totally insignificant, and as an attempt for promotion, I think it qualifies for speedy G11. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (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.