Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Williams (writer)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Robin Williams (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is about a subject that is not notable, and appears to be either self-created or maintained by the subject herself. A google search turned up few reliable resources besides the writer's own publicity. This violates policies including WP:GNG, WP:PROMOTION

The subject writes computer manuals. Her main claim to notability is in the sentence "Through her writing, teaching, and seminars, ... [Williams] has influenced an entire generation of computer users in the areas of design, typography, desktop publishing, the World Wide Web, and the Macintosh." But this quote is merely a blurb on the back of one of her books. Most of the citations are to works of the author herself. See notability guidance under WP:AUTHOR.

Her other claim to fame is a book she wrote in the genre of the fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship denial. A summary of that section of the page could be incorporated in the extensive Shakespeare authorship question page, under the list of alternative candidates. The note of her book could be used there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomagosh (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a bit of a slog to search for sources due to the much more famous Robin Williams, but I have been able to add reviews and commentary, as well as information from Publishers Weekly about two of her many books being bestsellers in 2000, so it looks like there is support for WP:AUTHOR notability due to her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Every source in the article traces back to her own claims and works. If she were notable, it would be easy to find reliable sources written by someone other than herself. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep nothing but self directed sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Comment After I accessed the Wikipedia Library, I added more book reviews and articles about her, from additional scholarly journals and news outlets. Her book about Shakespeare appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, and while I have only so far searched with her name and the titles of two of her many works, I found reviews for a variety of her works. All of the additions are independent WP:SECONDARY sources that support WP:AUTHOR notability because she has created and co-created a significant collective body of work, based on multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The big question about her work isn't whether it's voluminous, but whether it's "significant." Having a lot of works, or having ones that have sold a lot of copies, doesn't necessarily indicate that the writer is notable. So for instance, the criteria for WP:AUTHOR states: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  Having a couple reviews in a specialized periodical does not meet that criterion.  It appears that Ms. Williams is a technical writer (and I presume a very good one.) That doesn't make her notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.  I'd also note that Ms. Williams personally edited the page on a number of occasions, which to me indicates that this is WP:PROMOTION.  Despite the positive contributions of Beccaynr, I still think this page is about an insufficiently notable individual.  --Bomagosh (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Periodicals reviewing and discussing her and her work that are in the article include The New York Times (1998), The Sante Fe New Mexican (2007) (and in 2006) , Ms. (2013) , Newsweek (2004) , and The Washington Times (2006). Scholarly reviews and discussion of her work includes The Oxfordian (2006) (2019), Sidney Journal (2006), Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine (2003), Technical Communication (1994) (2001) (2002) (2005). There are also trade publications, i.e. District Administration (2003) (2008), Library Journal (2000), Publishers Weekly (2000), and reviews from industry publications, i.e. MacUser (1993) and Tidbits (1992) (1994) (1996). And this is just a start based on a limited search online and at the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, that list doesn't really help much. Most of these are merely book reviews, and fairly brief ones, about her computer textbooks. They talk about the popularity of some of her books, but this is a biographical article about her personally. None of those are "primary subjects of notable works" or any further analysis. The articles in the Oxfordian are questionable as WP:RS, since the Oxfordian is a journal that explicitly is dedicated to promotion of a fringe theory. I don't doubt that there are numerous reviews for Williams's books, but the quantity does not necessarily make her notable, at least as I read the relevant WP standards. Other articles you identified look more like a local paper printing an article based on a press release announcing Williams speaking, with no analysis of her claims.  Bomagosh (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The beginning of my search on ProQuest shows additional reviews and articles focused on her, her biography, and her career, in addition to the other reviews and sources that also support her WP:BASIC notability, e.g. Albuquerque Journal (2001),, The New York Times (1990), The Wall Street Journal (1993), MacUser (1990). The Santa Fe New Mexican (2002, describing her as "a cult hero in Mac computer circles") and The Globe and Mail (2004). And this is only a start, because I only used one of the titles of her works as a search term in addition to her name, and did not get through the first page of results. Beccaynr (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC) As I continue in my ProQuest search, there is also a review from Macworld (1991), more New York Times articles (1993, not a full review like many of the other full reviews listed below, but stating in a paragraph, "Arguably the best introduction to the Macintosh has been issued in a third edition. "The Little Mac Book," by Robin Williams (Peachpit Press; $16), should be bought when you buy a Macintosh...") (1993, same, stating in a graf "And if you can afford only one computer dictionary, give serious consideration to the refreshingly titled "Jargon," by Robin Williams, with Steve Cummings..."), (1995, with more focus on her and a new book, "Robin Williams has finally gone off the wall. Not the actor and comedian, who was always professionally off the wall, but the author of such computer classics as "The Little Mac Book" and "The Non-Designer's Design Book." Her "A Blip in the Continuum" ...). There is also coverage of her internet cafe I have not yet included, and this 2005 Albuquerque Journal article offers more biographical and career information, even though the WP:AUTHOR guideline does not require it, as well as further support for the significance of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC) And the start of my ProQuest search related to The Non-Designer's Design Book has yielded a variety of reviews, e.g.  so it appears she has at least several works with WP:NBOOK notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bomagosh Reviews DO count for WP:NBOOK. It's even in the part you quoted. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". pburka (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? Where is Carri Hammett's Wikipedia page, then? There's a million other people with such "notability." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My online search for author Carri Hammett finds a blog book review, a blog interview and an ARTNews capsule review, and on the WP Library, a few Library Journal reviews of her books about knitting. I did not find other periodicals or scholarly journals discussing her work, or articles about her. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Beccaynr (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Beccaynr (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Beccaynr has clearly demonstrated a WP:NAUTHOR pass here, and there's obviously way more out there. I don't think this kind of writing is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR has in mind, but there's so much of it, with so many reviews, and with the additional biographical material. This isn't going to be an easy article to tidy up, but if there's a good-faith argument for deletion to be made in the face of all this press coverage I have no idea what it would look like. It's clearly possible to write a reasonably complete article about her and her work without going into original research. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep– per this conversation, the article meets WP:GNG, and WP:NAUTHOR. Reminder, not to be Using deletion as cleanup. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep But the article needs cleanup: 1) the unsourced info needs to be removed 2) minor or less reliable sources need to be removed where a single source suffices. I also think that it would be best NOT to link to aggregators like gale/ebsco in references. If you can't link to the open access article then a citation with no link is probably preferable. But that's just my preference - I don't know if there's a proper policy for that. Lamona (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add that in most bios the main thrust is about what the person has DONE beyond just being a person. For writers, their written output, and the reception of it, is what they have DONE. That doesn't make it less of a BLP.Lamona (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the Gale and JSTOR links to make future editing a little easier for anyone with access - WP warns/blocks some attempts to add proxy urls so those are not added but can be retrieved from the databases noted in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC) And the citations could be updated to add via=Gale and via=JSTOR etc to make them reader-friendlier. Beccaynr (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: this seems like a WP:HEY situation, and the presented counterarguments to Beccanyr's references seem overly technical, i.e. wikilawyering. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The only academic attention to Sweet Swan of Avon is the review by |A282068869&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco&asid=05d8c745 Waller, who is less than impressed. But overall, I think WP:AUTHOR is met, and we're better off explaining why the book was found unpersuasive. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:NAUTHOR, a person is presumed notable if their work has been the subject of multiple periodical articles or reviews.  I think we should hold the computer books to a high standard (as they are of somewhat passing interest due to the rapid evolution of technology), but the steady output of books and reviews over a number of years seems convincing to me.  The Shakespeare book also received a fair bit of attention, and helps support.  It is likely that we should indicate more clearly in the article that the Shakespeare theory is fringe-y, although I'm not sure of the best way to do that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The review XOR'easter points out in the comment above is probably the way to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened a somewhat-related discussion on the article Talk page that might help develop this in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. The Little Mac Book really is a classic as well. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, works well known ie. still held by 100s of libraries - The non-designer's presentation book, The little Mac book just to name a couple, lots of reviews as brought out by above, btw nominator's remark in a reply of "Having a couple reviews in a specialized periodical does not meet that criterion." is just plain wrong. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2022 (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.