User talk:Hayley douglas
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Hayley douglas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Top Jim (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Ken Scott Author Ghostwriter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable author per WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.
Ken Scotts books are freely available on Amazon, Play.com, Barnes and Noble and both in UK and US stores , he features on several well respected UK literary agents web sites and his book Do The Birds Still Sing in Hell? is published in several languages. Next year it goes into movie production with London based film maker Kingsway Films. In addition a google search for Ken Scott author brings up newspaper articles attributed in fifteen different countries worldwide. For your records his date of birth is 12/08/1962
Please do not consider this article for deletion, should you require any further evidence please let me know, I am a big fan of Ken Scott's writing and have worked for several days on this contribution. It would be a great personal achievement for me if he were to be featured on Wikipedia.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Top Jim (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Copied from article talk page Amazon etc will list anything so long as they can get it 'on demand'. If these books are stocked in physical shops (as opposed to virtual online ones), then please give references to show this - it may help. To me, the books look to be self-published, and ghostwriting tends to be regarded (rightly or wrongly) as non-notable in itself. The yet to be published work fails WP:CRYSTAL. Apart from which, all biographies of living people MUST be referenced ([[WP:BLP} and WP:RS). Peridon (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but to me those refs don't show the coverage needed. They are articles about the 'authors' of the books, not the ghost. The exception is a multi-interview which tells me little. I'm one opinion. But it is very hard to show notability for self-publishers or ghostwriters. Neither attract the sort of independent coverage we look for. See what else you can come up with - the more the better. Peridon (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have sent you to links with the biggest chain of UK bookstores feauturing all of Ken Scotts books, I have taken you to The biggest selling newspaper in the UK, The Sun, that carries a feature on Ken Scotts book 'Do The Birds Still Sing In Hell' which goes into film production next year and also the respected Fleet Street publication 'The Telegraph.'
This has been an altogether very unpleasant experience for me, in this my first contribution to Wikipedia. I'm almost been made out to be a liar, a feel like a fraud and a cheat. Reference's to Ken Scott the author is all over the www and having liased with his uk fan club in England over this insertion we all feel rather insulted.
More links should you want them. However I fear that I will no longer pester you and allow you to get on with other things. From being a number one fan of Wikipedia I now find myself wondering about every article I've ever read. Perhaps you should view this on youtube if you are still convinced he is a figment of my imagination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TpMOmDs_c
www.librosinternational.com http://www.mcliteraryadvisors.com http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?BookID=183710 http://nik-writealot.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-do-birds-still-sing-in-hell.html http://www.albabooks.com/index.php?cPath=24 http://horacegreasley.net84.net/
- Response I'm sorry you feel offended, and would point out that I've been trying to help you - as I usually do. There is no link to any book shop in the article, nor to the Telegraph. A good article - about or mainly featuring - Ken Scott in the Telegraph would be a good thing to have. Note the caveat - mentions are not counted as real coverage in Wikipedia terms. The Telegraph is a good place for sourcing, but the Sun is not regarded as being particularly good (circulation does not equal reliability) and the article is not about Mr Scott in any depth. Believe me, we have no doubts about Mr Scott's existence. That is proven. But existence does not equal place in encyclopaedia. There are millions of people doing good jobs or good works that don't get in here. It can be painful for someone who is connected to a person whose article is deleted on the grounds of notability, when they are sure that the person is notable. As I said above, it is hard to show notability for a ghostwriter as they are of necessity behind the scenes. (It can be done - as with stunt men.) It's not my decision that would delete this article - an admin will make that unless someone takes the 'prod' notice off before the time. (I've taken my 'prod2' off as evidence of existence is now given.) If the prod is removed, someone may decide to take things to Articles for Deletion (AfD) where the discussion is seen by more people. There is discussion of how the rules apply and more opinions are available. One or two can be rude, but most who work in AfD are willing to help where possible. This isn't a carefully planned response (as you will have noticed) so I'm going back to your refs. Libros and MC both indicate self-publishing - which makes good reviews in reliable sources WP:RS essential. Can you find something that isn't a blogspot (or suchlike) source? One or two blogs carry the stamp of reliability - if the known author has an article on Wikipedia, it will probably count as reliable. Otherwise - if this goes, come back when the necessary is available. Good sound evidence of the film (but see WP:CRYSTAL) would be a great help. A crossover to standard publishing would be good too. (We had one recently that was deleted several times (and everyone was getting fed up of it appearing...), but who got taken up by a publisher and the article now stands. Can't remember the name, sorry.) I do wish good luck to you in your search, and also to Mr Scott in his career. Sorry this is rather rambling - and I do hope you understand why we have the rules and have to look into these things. Would you give an article to someone who wrote a 200,000 word novel, published it through lulu and sold six copies (to their cousins)? (BTW look at Brian Dekkers(brian D) for a definitive how-not-to-reference.....) Peridon (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just one last thought - you might be better for now with an article about Birds. It can be that a book is more notable (in the Wikipedia sense) than the person who actually wrote it. I feel more people will be looking for that than for Mr Scott at present. Come the film, well... Peridon (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I talked about this with Top Jim and he agrees. I think he's got some references for the book that could make that a going proposition. From there, there's chances for Ken Scott himself. Have a look at Top Jim's talk page. Peridon (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just one last thought - you might be better for now with an article about Birds. It can be that a book is more notable (in the Wikipedia sense) than the person who actually wrote it. I feel more people will be looking for that than for Mr Scott at present. Come the film, well... Peridon (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Response I'm sorry you feel offended, and would point out that I've been trying to help you - as I usually do. There is no link to any book shop in the article, nor to the Telegraph. A good article - about or mainly featuring - Ken Scott in the Telegraph would be a good thing to have. Note the caveat - mentions are not counted as real coverage in Wikipedia terms. The Telegraph is a good place for sourcing, but the Sun is not regarded as being particularly good (circulation does not equal reliability) and the article is not about Mr Scott in any depth. Believe me, we have no doubts about Mr Scott's existence. That is proven. But existence does not equal place in encyclopaedia. There are millions of people doing good jobs or good works that don't get in here. It can be painful for someone who is connected to a person whose article is deleted on the grounds of notability, when they are sure that the person is notable. As I said above, it is hard to show notability for a ghostwriter as they are of necessity behind the scenes. (It can be done - as with stunt men.) It's not my decision that would delete this article - an admin will make that unless someone takes the 'prod' notice off before the time. (I've taken my 'prod2' off as evidence of existence is now given.) If the prod is removed, someone may decide to take things to Articles for Deletion (AfD) where the discussion is seen by more people. There is discussion of how the rules apply and more opinions are available. One or two can be rude, but most who work in AfD are willing to help where possible. This isn't a carefully planned response (as you will have noticed) so I'm going back to your refs. Libros and MC both indicate self-publishing - which makes good reviews in reliable sources WP:RS essential. Can you find something that isn't a blogspot (or suchlike) source? One or two blogs carry the stamp of reliability - if the known author has an article on Wikipedia, it will probably count as reliable. Otherwise - if this goes, come back when the necessary is available. Good sound evidence of the film (but see WP:CRYSTAL) would be a great help. A crossover to standard publishing would be good too. (We had one recently that was deleted several times (and everyone was getting fed up of it appearing...), but who got taken up by a publisher and the article now stands. Can't remember the name, sorry.) I do wish good luck to you in your search, and also to Mr Scott in his career. Sorry this is rather rambling - and I do hope you understand why we have the rules and have to look into these things. Would you give an article to someone who wrote a 200,000 word novel, published it through lulu and sold six copies (to their cousins)? (BTW look at Brian Dekkers(brian D) for a definitive how-not-to-reference.....) Peridon (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I confess I had given up on Wikipedia and yes at the time I was offended, but to take your point on an author writing a 200,000 word novel on Lulu and being published I fully agree. However Ken Scotts books are with recognised publishers and respected literary agents. Namely Libros International, John Blake (publishers) Christopher Little Agency, MCLA (he is a client of their agency division) and Andrew Lownie, all agents. If you can give me an email I can ask some of those organisations to verify that he is a respected author. I'm afraid I can't do any more. Nor am I able to remove the prod. Many thanks for your help, I realise now that you are simply trying to keep Wikipedia respectable. I'll pass on the Birds thing. By the way, I can also ask Reg Traviss the film diector who hopefully will be directing 'Do The Birds Still Sing In Hell?' next year to also drop you a mail and I could try to find also Ken Scott's foreign rights agent who I know has his book published in Italian, Spanish and Turkish. See the Italian publisher link - www.faustolupettieditore.it . Search Ken Scott and the book 'Se All 'Inferno Cantano Gli Ucelli' will come up. Many thanks for your help, I hope after all our hard work it may pass muster?
Here is the Italian link http://faustolupettieditore.it/catalogo.asp
- Emails would be primary sources, I'm afraid. I think I may have been mistaken about Libros - I took it to be self-publishing. Am I incorrect there? Also - who publishes Birds? If you can provide evidence it would help. And for translations - definite help. Top Jim could remove the prod - if he doesn't he might take it to AfD. I'll contact him and see what he says. (You can remove it - but that usually means someone will AfD it.) Peridon (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Libros International are not self publishers, they published 'Birds' have also sent you the link to Italian publisher, see above. Also, see below, link to MC Literary agents announcing news of Ken Scott's book on Crissy Rock to be published by John Blake. http://mcliteraryadvisors.com/MCLiteraryAgents.html See also link to John Blake Publisher, think you will see that they are not self publishing company either. http://www.johnblakepublishing.co.uk/e-store/home.php http://faustolupettieditore.it/catalogo.asp
Like I say, fingers crossed, think I have sent you everything you have asked for and more. Many many thanks for your time.
Just found your post
[edit]in the wrong place - you put it on my userpage not the talk page. The article has been deleted, but you can ask for it to be undeleted and userfied (that means put as a subpage of your userpage). Leave a message at Courcelle's talkpage and say you're working on it with me and Top Jim. Then when that's done, it's fairly safe for the time being. I've actually saved a copy of it, but it looks better if you go through the request for undeletion. Let me know - in the right place :) - what happens. Peridon (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)