Talk:Graham McCann

Dubious thread on notability

Alas - is not notable as an author. Gets mentioned a total of once in the NYT:

Mr. McCann is a talented writer, but his prose sometimes reaches the kind of critical density that Mr. Allen has hilariously parodied, to wit: 'Jokes are obliged to compete in the market-place of pleasures associated with laughter, and for that reason their materials must be less privileged, less personally limited, and their ludicrous context must be wider than obtains in daily extemporaneous provocations to laughter.'

Thus, this stub seems to be deletable. Collect (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You really should read up on what makes an article notable before you take what I think is a rather sob-optimal step. Was the NYT the extent of your search? (And at least one review by them should flag up at least a minor level if notability) try a basic Google search, from which several reliable sources can be seen on the first results page. To also try and claim in the PROD that he has only written two books when the incomplete page contains five seems disingenuous in the least. I'll do five minutes digging to fill this out a little more, which is what you should have done before slapping a rather lazy PROD tag on there. – SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tell me when and where McCann was born? Raised? Educated? Anything actually biographical about the 29 year old entertainment writer? I assure you that my record about AfDs is that I generally oppose deletion. In this case, I found essentially zilch personally about the person, and yes - I did a lot more than single NYT search. When the PROD was placed - only the two were mentioned in the "article." Do you realize quite how many books a year are issued on "entertainment" topics? The concept of a "biography" is to inform readers about the subject of the biography. Sorry. Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I do have some of that information, but I'm always wary of what is essentially trivia in a BLP article. His notability has feck all to do with birth or education, and more to do with his 13 published biographical works, let alone his appearances on television discussing the topics he's written on. If you had an iota of bloody patience and allowed the research I said I'd do, we could all have avoided the stupidity of a petulant AfD filing. – SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Um -- a single line article with zero reliable sources affirming notability of the person is a ripe candidate for AfD. Why do you call this "petulant"? Collect (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

AfDs should never be filed based on the state of the article at the time, but on the notability of the subject. The list of sources gathered posted at the AfD in ten minutes and on a dodgy mobile signal (let alone the 13 published works we have, many of which are widely used as supporting sources in FAs and GAs) are more than enough evidence of notability. – SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm Graham McCann, and I don't see any point to this entry, I don't want it, I don't encourage it and it's not even accurate. Please DO delete it and give me some privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE respond to me? Why on earth have you made this entry, this badly researched and largely inaccurate entry, in spite of there being no strong justification for doing so? Is it out of boredom or institutionalised compulsion? I've spent all of my adult life avoiding publicity and guarding my privacy. I've wanted my work to be available, yes, and so I've been persuaded to promote it on occasion through conventional ways, but that's all that I've promoted - my work, not me. I doubt that you can understand how deeply I resent this intrusion, and how offensive I find it. But it's profound. I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging.

Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth have you made this entry,? Why? Because you (apparently) have become one of Britain's most reputable biographers and writers on popular culture. You've authored some key books and publications and meet our content guidelines. We write about notable writers here, and we've only included information which is reported elsewhere, do you mean to say that it's all false?.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

SECOND DELETE REQUEST: I've been asked to post this in connection with the delete nomination dated 2 August.

I am the subject of the article and I do not believe that I am any kind of public figure, or at least not one who is of anything like sufficient prominence to justify an article about me.

This article has infringed on my privacy. I am not a current writer, I am not seeking publicity of any kind, I want to live my life in private. Perhaps this is a culture in which such a desire has come to be seen as unusual, but I can assure you that it is sincere. I find this article an unnecessary and profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy, actively creating or increasing my public profile against my wishes.

Second: It is a poorly researched article that provides only a partial, imbalanced and in places, in my view, strangely misleading impression of my past work. The list of my published output, for example, is strikingly incomplete. What is mentioned is questionably imbalanced: for example, two of my oldest books lead to negative critical quotes about my research and judgement; the vast majority of reviews I've ever had make a point of praising my research and most have been admiring of my judgement, and yet none of these quotes have been included even as balance, even though the one book that IS acknowledged as being 'praised,' and attracted many of such positive critical comments, is accompanied by no such quotes. That's unrepresentative. After dwelling, for some peculiar reason, on my four earliest books from the last century, the author covers the rest in the most superficial way, again providing an extremely dubious and skewed impression of a career. He also mentions that, for my book on Dad's Army, I 'conducted numerous interviews with cast members' - well, yes I did, but this implies that I didn't 'conduct numerous interviews' for my other books, which I did. That's an odd thing to do, and it's misleading, too. You can't claim my work deserves inclusion and then treat it in such a capricious manner.

There are many other signs of ignorance and poor research. I have not, for example, written 'numerous articles' on any subject for the Daily Mail. As far as I recall I've written about a couple for that paper in my entire life. I've written numerous ones for certain other papers - which are not noted. That's misleading. The author appears not to know the period in which I wrote for the Financial Times - these are all things that one is supposed to ascertain and double check BEFORE publishing something on someone - you don'y just go clodhopping over a living person's past career.

Then there's my academic work. Because the only detail the author appears to know about (apart from my - unspecified - period as a Lecturer) is my past work for the University of Cambridge's 'summer extension programme' (not that I've ever heard it referred to as that), that's all he's included. It's even wrong to claim that this particular work is ongoing - it isn't. It's something I consider as an offer from time to time. It's wrong to describe it as current. Then there's absolutely no further detail on a long academic career - no positions other than a fellowship (there were many), no research details, no academic output. This, again, is a strikingly incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging section.

I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute. Surely, in a cool hour, you can sit back, reflect, and appreciate that any claim to my supposed 'relevance' is so contentious that, considered on its own and also in relation to the great distress it's causing me, and will continue to cause me, it's not worth keeping it. I haven't seen any sign of anyone at Wikipedia who is able or willing to imagine the issue from an outsider's point of view. My point of view. I hope someone will now do this. This has caused me so much hurt, so needlessly, for such a trivial, insubstantial and patently unimpressive article. Please drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to that dash-dash signature thing, so here you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

TV work

He's also appeared on TV and acted as a consultant to programme makers. Two of these are listed at the BFI, but I've seen him in other work too, which should be findable somewhere. (Possibly in the Heroes of Comedy on LeMes, I seem to remember. – SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

His work as a consultant is likely worth citing, but I don't think his appearances on TV as an expert are, any more than his having written a lot of newspaper articles. These have come to be "common doddle" as my grandfather used to say, for people who've published in any field - both the papers and the radio and TV are voracious. On the other hand - tucking this in here rather than making a new section - his personal bio says he was TV critic for the Financial Times; that would be worth including if it can be independently cited, even with a couple of bylined articles, and I find articles by him in FT being cited, but they seem to date to 2003 and the newspaper's own online archive peters out. Is there anything in Questia or Highbeam that preserves the byline? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed the TV work to just that of consultant, and added the FT info. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

what I have learnt

Mr. McCann is not writing dissertations about notable people - he is relating what he learns in conversations with others, not "interviews" as done by a police officer, but as in conversations with friends. He is not seeking to "give readers 1000 facts", but is trying to make readers feel they personally know the people involved.

His job is to write popular books about popular people, and, as such, is part of a very good and admirable group of authors.

His job is not to "fact check every word told him in conversation", but to convey to readers how talking with others feels. This is not "sociology" and has exceedingly little to do with "political history."

One of Wikipedia's chief failings is the belief that anything published by a "reliable publisher" has specifically been "fact checked" and is thus a "reliable source" for any claims made therein. One does not "fact check" conversations with a friend and expect that to help tell a story which people wish to read.

More than anything else, people want to feel they know the person in a biography as though he or she were a next-door neighbor. And to that end, I feel Mr. McCann (whom I would likely love to converse with) is ill-served here. Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM – SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Um -- yet your insist on "DUBIOUS" in a section title here. Pray tell, in what way am I advocating, advertising or promoting anything whatsoever here in my post? In fact, I am simply concurring with the person who is the subject of this biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No. 2, "Opinion pieces". Your edit is not aimed at any constructive steps toward improving the article, it's just another bitch-fest for you. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and do something useful. – SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First - WP:AGF. Second - note that I apparently agree with the real living person who is the topic of the BLP. Third - note that my positions here are in accord with non-negotiable policy. As for saying that following WP:BLP is a "bitch-fest" - I fear you really should have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far, and your ongoing comments show a,lack of constructive approach. Secondly, your initial comment wasn't anything to do with BLP; it was, just moaning for the sake of it. DROPTHESTICK is a sensible course of action for you to take. I'm done here: I have little desire to continue any further waste of time and effort with you. – SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What you COULD do is just remove this appalling badly researched, almost non-researched, article. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny how you don't have the decency to discuss this with the very person who is the undeserved subject of your ill-informed article. I guess, in your astonishing arrogance, you think you know better than I do about myself. What a disgrace you are.92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you could retain a certain level of civility by not insulting others, that would be so much better. I had not seen your comments until the last insulting one you posted. To explain: I am just one of several editors that has worked on this article. if you are who you say you are (and you would best to identify yourself at the OTRS facility to get yourself on a decent footing), then welcome, and thank you for providing us with some excellent and enjoyable works. I have several of them, and not only have they been enjoyable reading, they have proved most useful in expanding some of our articles ( I think we may even have had brief email contact on one of them a few years ago).

If there are any errors in what is shown on our article (which is entirely possible) they will have been picked up from the third party sources used. If you wish to challenge any of them on a factual basis (for example, wrong date of birth, you no longer work at a particular institution, etc) the best way is to take it up with the OTRS team, who will be able to guide you through the steps to take. Without that, we, the editing community, have no idea that you are actually who you say you are (although we work on the basis of assuming good faith in our dealings with others, that can only go so far, as I am sure you can understand. Best wishes - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the insulting one. You are invading my privacy and your arrogance appears to know no bounds. Take that fatuous reply: "If there are any errors in what is shown on our article (which is entirely possible) they will have been picked up from the third party sources used." You really think this toytown encyclopedia is above criticism, don't you? I should know my own damned life and career! Who the hell do you think you are? You don't stick an article online and then hope someone who knows what they're doing will correct it and expand it. You think I teach where you say I teach? No, not now, but you won't remove it. You think I still write? No, I don't, but you still state that I'm a 'full time writer'. Why on earth are you invading the privacy of someone who is not well-known, does not crave publicity and whom you clearly don't know? This is a huge cause of distress to me and you act like some pompous guardian of absolute truth. Take the article down, learn how to do research and move on.

92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave you with the only advice I can: take this up with the OTRS team who will be able to help you, as I obviously cannot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried that. What one gets is a purfunctory invitation to dive down the Wikipedia rabbit hole via a series of links that lead nowhere constructive (presumably in the hope that one will give up and leave the self-appointed arbiters of relevance in peace), then patronising offers to allow me to provide the substance for my own unwanted article, and then, that tried and trusted meek exit line, 'We're only volunteers'. I wonder how many other people this disgraceful enterprise drives to despair. Far too many, I suspect. Maybe someone should have a go at 'verifying' it. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're really Graham McCann, prove it. Otherwise shut up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)