Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Barton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Barton[edit]

The only real claim to notability is The Red Book which is from a vanity press Plane Tree (UK) .

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Plane Tree IS NOT A VANITY PRESS! It is a printer. PLEASE RESEARCH MORE THOROUGHLY!

A vanity press charges thousands of pounds to print ANY book, regardless of quality, and will not expect to sell any copies other than those to the author themselves. Plane Tree is a POD printer who specialise in new small-press books and reprints of out-of-print books. You are fudging the terminology! Vanity press = exploited writer, out of pocket and devalued. POD printer = writer in control. The difference is clear. (N.B 'The Red Book' is still number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart - has sold over 1000 copies in two months - very large number for a poetry book!) Poetics uk 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of whether it's a vanity press or a POD printer, it doesn't indicate that anyone other than the author thinks the book is notable. No vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Poetics uk, can you provide the link showing that this book is on Amazon.co.uk's Hot Books chart? Because I'm looking here and not seeing it. -- H·G (words/works) 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, although today's bestselling book under Gay & Lesbian > Literature > Poetry > Gay isn't really the same as "number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart." (Congratulations on doing as well as you are, though.) However, at this point I still don't see how WP:BIO is met. Probably the easiest criteria for the subject to meet would be "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Thus, if citations can be provided in the article of several independent reviews or awards from sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G (words/works) 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The Red Book' IS on the 'Hot Books' chart - has now been in the top 5 for six weeks. Hot Books Poetry OK - feel like it's we're fighting a losing battle here, but regards sources, I will only say that 'The Red Book' / Video Nation aren't the only reasons Ben Barton is noted as a poet! These were just noted to make the biography succinct.

For over ten years his poems have appeared in many of Britain's foremost literary magazines, these include: Acorn, Carillon, Decanto, Harlequin, Masque, New Horizon, Parameter, Roadworks, Scriptor, Secret Attic, Sentinel, Time Haiku, The Ugly Tree and X Magazine. Regards your "independent reviews and awards", there are many sources, which because they are not online, don't seem to be valid to wiki people:

  • Reviews of 'The Red Book':
    Writers' Forum, August 2006, Writing Magazine September 2006, Terrible Work, The Frogmore Papers Summer 2006, iota 75, Poetry in a Cup, Poetry Kit.
    Ben also won the Folkestone Faber/Ottakars Poetry Competition for National Poetry Day two years consecutively (1997-1998).
    Reviews of his poetry/career:
    e-poets.com, Writers' News October 2004/January 2000.
    His links with Derek Jarman:
    Pyramid Magazine Fall 2006.
    Also his Derek Jarman project with photographer Jennifer Harris has just been commissioned by the Kent Council to go on a countywide tour of art galleries. He is also a full-time writer for Britain's biggest selling subscription magazine, Saga – some of his articles can be read here: ONE TWO THREE This information is not exhaustive. I think people have concentrated too much on the POD printing of a particular book and ignored the full scope of the writer and his publishing acheivements. Poetics uk 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources that are not online are perfectly valid , it's just harder for us to check them. The above does lend some weight to notability as a poet. Some points in connection with it
a) There are very many little literary magazines that flower and die. Which of the above are major, longstanding ones that I can find in a good reference library? What issues should I be checking?
b) "In 1997 aged fifteen he won first prize in the Ottakars/Faber & Faber poetry competition for National Poetry Day in his home county of Kent. The following year his poem The Re-Birth Remembered repeated this success by winning the competition again. The poem was also a winner in the National competition and was published in the accompanying anthology. Reviews at the time labelled him 'Britain's youngest, most published poet'." That seems to be a regional rather than a national win and in a Children's section.
c) Links with Derek Jarman - what are they? Notability is not contagious.
d) The Saga magazine links are short travel articles - INMHO they add nothing to a claim of notability. Thousands of articles of this genre are written (they also seem to be unattributed but I'm not disputing authorship).
----
"unattributed" ? On my screen articles clearly state 'Ben Barton' in the intro.
----
Ok - I see the name now. However, my point is that it's a travel article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


e) In general, I'd personally expect to see much more published and by mainstream publishers before a Wiki article was warranted. Dlyons493 Talk 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - single appearance on BBC fails WP:BIO criteria, and the claim of best-selling book is unsourced. Kimchi.sg 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POD or vanity press, 1000 copies doesn't make it. Fan-1967 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Book by POD, BBC exposure by public access TV (which is what Video Nation amounts to) -- GWO
  • Delete per nom, notability is not established by one appearance on Video Nation. And this site doesn't have flattering things to say about POD services, either. Sample statement: "In practice, POD services more closely resemble vanity publishers--which is how they're generally regarded by readers, reviewers, and booksellers." -- H·G (words/works) 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it seems the Ben Barton topic has been well and truly 'resolved' by this kangaroo court, so I bid you all farewell. Please delete this article ASAP. As said before, the losing battle was clear from the start. I'm not sure whether this experience reminds me of vultures circling or playground bullies - perhaps it's both. Good day. Poetics uk 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Barton&oldid=1072125514"