Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/M. J. Williams


 * 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. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)'''.

M. J. Williams
Contested PROD. Lack of demonstrated notability of author. An English Wikipedia article on the author would establish the notability. Failing that I would suggest W:WP:THREE with strict attention to W:WP:RS and that not something I going to get massively involved in here; especially given creator's contributions on my talk page. — DeirgeDeltac 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Vote closes: 16:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: (nominator) -- DeirgeDeltac 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of notability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * RETAIN: Wheatfromchaff (talk) 11.58, 29 June2023 (UTC). Votes by people who haven't read this book should be ignored. I suspect MarkJoseph125 doesn't exist, it's DeirgeDel in disguise. I offered to pay for Deirgedel to receive a copy of the book at my own expense so she can read the writing and assess it for quality but she hasn't taken me up on the offer. It is a promising book by a good writer, I wouldn't have bothered to create the page and post quotes otherwise. Please note that if the page is deleted I won't be contributing to Wikiquote anymore, because I don't agree "notability" is the appropriate test; whether the writing is good and the quotes added are appropriate to the website should be the test irrespective of whether it's a new writer or an established writer. See also my comments on the Talk Page for the M J Williams page. I'm annoyed at being forced to waste time on this by a woman who can't be bothered to read the book even when I say I'll pay the costs of the book and delivery. If you aren't willing to bother to read a book you shouldn't be running around trying to get material from it deleted - shame on you. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but reports of my non-existence have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I use my real name in my Wikiquote work. Markjoseph125 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you exist, I suggest you bother to read 'The Velocity of Blood' rather than lazily show your ignorance by voting to delete something about which you know nothing and haven't taken the trouble to learn anything. You will see 86% of people who have read it giving it a 5-stars on Amazon, which is high. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Velocity-Blood-M-J-Williams-ebook/dp/B09Z726521/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2NUD0UMUCSA0V&keywords=The+Velocity+of+Blood&qid=1688394791&sprefix=the+velocity+of+blood%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-1 Wheatfromchaff (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - despite the enthusiasm for this author by a user above, the fact remains that he has only published a single book and has not established a level of notability that is required for a page here. Determining whether writing is "good" is entirely a subjective exercise, but is not what is argued here. Wikiquote does expect a level of notability for an author to be included and this person does not appear to meet it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone too. Goodbye. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added a few links to the page's "External links" section. The author is on Amazon and Goodreads, and he is published in paperback. I don't know if that suffices to meet Wikiquote's notability criteria. If not, then perhaps Wheatfromchaff would like to archive quotes from the book on his personal page, seeing as he seems to have put a lot of work into this page. BurningLibrary (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically of no use whatsoever; and to a degree disruptive contribution and supporting of SEO contributions. Anybody can place a book on Amazon, and Goodreads can be used for SEO promotions.  In both cases the reviews can be faked. The book is self published and there will be need to look for independent reviews. -- DeirgeDeltac 02:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "There will be need to look for independent reviews." The only review I have been able to find is this one by a blog called Joyful Antidotes. I added a link to it as well. I am sorry if my efforts are disruptive, I am only trying to contribute as many facts as possible before the final decision is made. I suppose I may have a soft spot in my heart for up-and-coming authors. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Have you read the book, DeirdreDel?" "No I have not." "Then how do you know if it's notable or not?" "Sure bejaysus, the author doesn't have a Wikipedia page. How could he or it be notable if he or it doesn't have a Wikipedia page?! Hee hee. Ha ha." "Where does it say an author has to have a Wikipedia page to be on Wikiquote?" "Well actually you've got me there because it doesn't actually say it anywhere but I made it up as me own little test so I don't need to look any further, I can just have a little knee jerk reaction, which to be honest I love doin' because it saves me from thinkin' and it saves me from botherin' to have to read any of these feckin' books or find out much more, which would run contrary to my own innate laziness." "So what is The Velocity of Blood about?" "I have no idea." "Is it good literature worthy of being on Wikiquote, DeirdreDel?" "I have no idea, but that's not the right question to be askin', you need to ask if it or the author has 'notability'. Hee hee. Ha ha." "Okay, so let's look at that. Well, Wiktionary says "Notability" is the quality or state of being notable or eminent." And Wiktionary says "notable" means having the qualities of being worthy of note, profitable, useful, or noteworthy or extraordinary. Does the book meet any of these tests?" "I don't know, because I have never read the feckin book." "Well, I suggest you do, DeirdreDel, as part of the process of deciding if it belongs on the site or not. Or do some sufficient research, at least. And then answer whether it is notable or not, within the definition on Wiktionary in bold type above. Also, look at the five-star reviews on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk for the book, too, to guide you as to its literary qualities or otherwise." "Ah but that would be a terrible amount of work for me to have to do, I prefer my knee jerk reaction approach, it's so much easier: just, he doesn't have a Wikipedia page, kick the bloody thing out." "Of course you do. That's why you are a menace to this site. And should be stopped from using that approach, without more. You have no right to delete what you can't be bothered to read and haven't informed yourself about." Wheatfromchaff (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Okay, so let's look at that. Well, Wiktionary says 'Notability' is the quality or state of being notable or eminent." The page to refer to in this case is Notability. Based on the criteria on that page, there is, unfortunately, a high probability that the page will not survive. I have done what I can to contribute a few facts to this discussion, but as it stands currently, the scale tips towards deletion. On a side note, I encourage all participants in this discussion to treat each other with dignity and respect. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to learn some common sense and to be disgusted about what's going on here. The two people voting the material off the site are the same two people who vote every other page off the site - namely, DeirdreDel, supported by MarkJoseph125. Neither of those two people have read the book in question or bothered to find out anything about it. (I offered DeirdreDel to pay for her to receive a copy of the book free of charge including free postage which I will pay for out of my own pocket but she ignored the offer, and didn't even reply to the offer, which speaks volumes about her. She doesn't seem to think she needs to condescend to reading the book but thinks it's fine for her to vote material off the site she knows nothing about, which makes no sense at all.) There is a stupid "non-system" on this site which allows irresponsible idiots who cling to the idea a Wikiquote page must be supported by a Wikipedia page or it can't stand (e.g. DeirdreDel) having the automatic support of compadres who are probably equally brainless and irrational in their thinking. For people to vote material off a site who know nothing about the material, just because they feel like it, is beyond disgusting. For them to be allowed to by whoever administers this site and is in charge (if anyone) is even more disgusting, because it means you don't have any quality-control system. I have no problem with the material in question and the page it is on being removed by people who bother to read the book first of all, and I told DeirdreDel that. I told her, if she reads the book and then wants to remove the page, I won't argue about its removal. She refuses to read the book and instead pretends she is in a position to judge its unsuitability for the website. It's completely idiotic. That she is allowed to take that position is extraordinary inane.
 * Authors are entitled to proper respect for their material on this website and elsewhere. If it's rubbish or poor quality or isn't useful to the site it should go. But if it's of the quality that deserves to be on this website, they shouldn't have their material thrown off the site by someone too lazy and irresponsible to bother to inform themselves about the material. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There are two things to keep distinct in this discussion: the worthwhileness of the work itself, and its recognition by independent reviewers. You argue that the book is well written. It may very well be, so let's suppose that it is for the sake of argument. This does not automatically mean, however, that the work is recognized as such by other people. Public recognition of the work, by professional reviewers who are independent from the author, is what is being asked for here. For example, if the book was featured in a publication of some renown, like the London Review of Books, that would go some ways to show that the work is notable.


 * Of course, being endorsed by the London Review may be setting the bar a bit high for up-and-coming authors. The question, then, is how the bar may be set more fairly, and it is on this very point that a constructive discussion might be had.


 * If you were to mail me a copy of the book, and I enjoyed it, I might write a favorable review of it, but my review would not in and of itself make the book notable. If my review was published in a widely circulated newspaper, on the other hand, it would establish that the work was, in some sense, notable – i.e., notable enough to warrant a mention in a newspaper.


 * "There is a stupid 'non-system' on this site which allows irresponsible idiots who cling to the idea …" I do not think that such language is conducive to a constructive discussion.


 * "… a Wikiquote page must be supported by a Wikipedia page or it can't stand …" This is established procedure. I quote from Notability:


 * "Generally, if a topic is notable on Wikipedia, then it is notable enough for Wikiquote. Conversely, if an article about the topic has been deleted from Wikipedia on grounds of non-notability, then it is likely to be considered not notable on Wikiquote."


 * However, it is to be noted that Notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it is possible to make a case that a topic is notable even if it does not have a Wikipedia page. This does mean that a case has to be made. DeirgeDel suggested W:WP:THREE with strict attention to W:WP:RS. If a case for notability can be made on this basis, the page may survive. BurningLibrary (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I made the case already, above, that the book is notable (in one or more of the Wiktionary senses of the word: the bold-type-above senses) even though neither it nor the author has a Wikipedia page (as yet). I authorise anyone who bothers to read the book and disagrees, to delete the page I created if they think that is the correct course. Provided they have read the book first, I won't argue with them deleting the page. What I have a problem with is people running around deleting material they know nothing about and can't be bothered to inform themselves about. That is power without responsibility and shouldn't be allowed. I am happy to pay for and arrange for up to five copies of the book to be sent to interested persons without cost to themselves if you let me have a postal address so they can decide about the material. Or you can get a cheap copy delivered to your Kindle anyway via your local Amazon website. All you need to do is read it. (I should say it is simply a book I found on the book exchange shelf in my local railway station, and took home, and read, and was impressed by. I don't have any vested interest in it other than seeing good literature gets proper recognition, and I don't know or have any connection with the author.) Enough said. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, let's look at the Wiktionary entries for "notable" and "notability". The Wiktionary entry for "notable" says:


 * "Worthy of note; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished."


 * And the Wiktionary entry for "notable" says:


 * "The quality or state of being notable or eminent."


 * But what does "distinguished" mean? Of a person, it means "celebrated, well-known or eminent because of past achievements; prestigious". And what does "eminent" mean? It means "distinguished, important, noteworthy".


 * The concepts of "notable" and "notability", then, both seem to entail some level of personal recognition. It is not just about the quality of the work itself, but also about the degree to which the author is recognized by others.


 * Now, for an up-and-coming author, the task of becoming recognized may be quite difficult, especially in the beginning. That is why I have argued, and will continue to argue, that the bar should not be set too high in this regard. This is where there is a discussion to be had, if you are interested in having it. I would say that thus far, we have been speaking past each other. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm out of here. Don't message me again. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2023 (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.