Talk:Sean Thomas (writer)

Notability

Two internationally published novels establishes notability. the references are hard to find, though. there are multiple reviews, but the only source for them is the authors website, so ill abstain from using that and hopefully someone can find them online independent of his site.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm dubious re notability William M. Connolley (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that he's notable. The science is settled, William.Tirailleur (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Could I revive the above discussion? This article appears to have some BLP/POV issues, and could do with some wider consultation. I should firstly say that I'm of the perspective that it's much too long, and I can't find much in the sources to justify the detail included - for example I've removed a line stating that his journalistic work deals with a topic, but it turned out to be a blog. There's also a synopsis of every book, with a few additional tidbits of information, but to be frank, it may be more appropriate to list them, and perhaps highlight the topics of the most successful. Any thoughts? Marty jar (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC); Quick additional explanation - I've removed a few links; There were some more links to blogs or inappropriate articles. For example, both an interview with the subject, and a review from an online, open-access source had been included as references for the dates of publication for one of the books, yet neither covered related points. There's a Guardian review in there from a time when the author was actually a journalist working for the Guardian; that's perhaps something to be considered, but personally I'm happy to leave that in somewhere, as it can still factually be mentioned that it was their pick of the week. There's just a lot to be rearranged here, including the inclusion of further book reviews in the 'Background' section, so feel free to suggest any alterations. Marty jar (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The list of novels could reasonably be shortened, especially the latter two which appear less notable (and less successful - e.g. fewer translations). However several of your changes are otiose: you 1. excised a reference to the interactive German translation of one novel, Cagot, which (I am not sure if you speak German) clearly has notability, as it was the subject of discussion in German media for its innovation (and was shortlisted for a prize for the best ebook). 2. These days a blog is journalism: some of the most influential bloggers are journalists, and vice versa, making some specious distinction between print and the net is outdated. The blog cited was one of the most discussed articles in British journalism in the past year judging by the number of shares and citations in further blogs (and indeed that article led to vandalism of this site, as the history shows). scarletandblack —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To run through the main points - firstly we're in agreement that the article is longer than is justified by the content, so I'm sure there will be savings, and I think shortening the list of novels sounds like a good idea. To run through the other points: 1) I don't agree that the German article should be included for a number of reasons. I don't speak German, so perhaps you can clarify some of the content for me, but it's a book review, in German, from what appears to be a personal blog rather than a recognisable media outlet - is that correct? The inclusion of a foreign language book review of any kind on the English Wiki would typically need to have some justification beyond the review having an unusual angle - an ebook having a good review for interactivity would need to be a more notable one for inclusion. 2) While blogs can be popular, I certainly wouldn't agree that having written a blog post should be included in a Wiki. To say somebody has written controversially on a subject would require rather more - this example appears to be a couple of hundred words in a typically provocative, blog style (e.g. perhaps subediting, but the headline "Are atheists mentally ill?"; content like "the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench"(!) It's very much internet-based, button-pushing stuff, and not part of the background in journalism). Blogs are sometimes used as evidence for somebody's opinion on a topic, a regular interest (such as Christopher Booker / Environment), if relevant to other content, or perhaps as evidence of a life event. In this case I would certainly think it should be removed. The chap's background in journalism, and his work as an author seem like core content, while his blogging is also covered. Not sure individual blogs require coverage. Would you agree, or should we perhaps seek some other peoples' input to agree some changes? Marty jar (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In haste: we agree on shortening the details in the list of novels, I agree we should refer the German "Cagot" reference to a third party (if they can be bothered); though let it be noted the book was shortlisted for a prize as best interactive book of the year. We entirely disagree on the notability of the atheism blog. You seem to object merely on grounds of tone or opinion, this is unacceptable on Wiki. The blog was one of the most shared in British journalism in the year it was published; moreover, the same author has written before - with equal salience - on the same subject in the Daily Mail. A quick Google shows this blog went worldwide. Excision is therefore unjustified and contra-Wiki. If I had more time I woud link and argue better but i have a job to do! I suggest we defer to a third party, as you say, until and unless we are both at liberty to debate properly scarletandblack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.173.34 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I’ll add to the '3rd Opinion' boards, and see what comes back.. I certainly have no doubt that the blog would be shared - the comment and likes below suggest it’s not due to it being significant or starting debate, but simply anger and disagreement with the article. The guy’s just said something very provocative, so plenty of other blogs, forums and social networkers will link to it for people to see the outlandishness, which is why in terms of being ‘notable’ I wouldn’t compare it to the examples given above of people producing regular blogs on a topic, reflecting their opinions, positions or arguments. In cases where it makes a national impact and gets wider awareness, such as the Samantha Brick newspaper column and online article then inclusion could be justified, but I wouldn’t include a line and reference for every blog post. It’s not just down to judging the tone, but whether the content reflects the significance. Similarly that should also cover the other blogs included; Andrew Collins etc. Marty jar (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I personally don't see anything wrong with the way the article is now. Although the ref from The Daily Telegraph appears to be a blog, some blogs are reliable; in fact, after checking out the link, it appears to be an actual article. Also, WP:BLOGS says to use care with self-published sources, true, but I see no evidence that that article was written by Mr. Knox or anyone connected to him. The only real change to the article I made was this. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)