Talk:Tina Anderson

References, and WP:BIO

References are not the same thing as external links. This section needs to be cleaned up, but I'm not sure what the intent was for the links given: references to verify information in the article, or external links to more information that is not in the article. Also, if possible, a clear citation of the writer's having been published would be nice as it asserts notability per WP:BIO. As it stands, I don't see any claim to notability; I know several people in my university classes who maintain websites (i.e. domain and all) and could be construed to be writers. BigNate37_(T) 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I respond here??

My assistant [Jen works in my office] updated, and of course we have the same box with the same IP. Forgive if it seems like I was trying to post in stealth, I was not since I quite clearly posted the original article myself. ^^

Trying to answer here, how in fact would I show my works in print without mailing you a book? I've linked quite clearly to my publishers sites to show you where the books are and where it states clearly I'm in these books, and no, they are not my sites or publishers owned by me.

In fact that these books are in print and for sale. 0_o. Must I send Wikipedia the copies of my books. I've been assured by other authors that they never had to do this so I wonder why I'm being asked to? Would it be more feasible to ask my publishers to add to my wiki definition, which seems rather laborious to me, or what? How do I go about proving I'm not just phantom reccing my own work?

-Tina

You do not need to send in books. They are not required as part of a citation. You should, however, include a bibliography of your published works, preferably with their ISBNs and year published. I looked for the proper format guide for this, but I couldn't find it. If you simply add books in the following way, it won't look too sloppy and another editor will eventually come along and clean it up:

== Bibliography ==

*''[[Book Name]]'' (1998) ISBN:8-888-88888-8
*''[[Second Book's Name]]'' (2001) ISBN:8-888-88888-8

And so on. Don't worry if all the titles appear as red links to nonexistent articles; if that is a problem, another editor will clear it up for you. I borrowed this format (minus the ISBNs, but they are quite helpful) from the C. S. Lewis article, being the first author that came to mind. Also, please use four tildes to sign your comments. it is nice to know that I speak with the subject of the article, but as a general practice four tildes are preferred on all talk pages. BigNate37_(T) 01:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that information is already hiding in there. They're hidden with the wrong markup, let me see if I can fix it. BigNate37_(T) 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there was tons of this type of information hidden within <ref> tags. It was not appearing in the article; I reformatted it, and just put a lot of work in general into this article. By the way, it is a stub, considering there is only one paragraph describing the subject. Someone said it isn't, but I marked it as a stub. BigNate37_(T) 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

References, and WP:N

Hi, I'm a fan and fellow Texan that's been watching the conversation and decided to help out. I made some edits and noted Ms. Anderson's works and tried to reference her titles through your ISBN checker, I've been successful with that and have cited my finds, yet I'm uncertain about the format. Can I suggest the current editor that's taking a fine-tooth comb to Ms. Anderson's page also check out nearly every woman on the women comics writers Category:Female comics writers page to ensure they too are notable creators, and not just pages set up by their publishers in order to promote their books. I don't see that going on here with Ms. Anderson's page, but I do see it elsewhere. Perhaps if Ms. Anderson didn't involve herself at all with editing her page, it may give it more credibility? --Clsazekiel (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Catherine, and thanks! I was unsure about the ISBN checking, and yes, not sure about all this notability stuff either. If I'm deleted, then I guess thems the breaks. :( I was trying edit earlier and had trouble logging in, but perhaps you're right, maybe I should just step away from the page and let the editors do what they want.  :/ --Gynocrat (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that having coined GloBL passes WP:CREATIVE, which is part of the notability criteria. Other ways to strengthen the claims of notability are: have people written about Tina Anderson herself? (as opposed to her views on yaoi) Has any of Tina Anderson's books been nominated for an award? --Malkinann (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel that perhaps the reason why this article is being looked at and notability questioned is because of the recent deletion discussion for Kira Takenouchi, in which the people who wished the article to be kept said "but you've got an article on Tina Anderson...". --Malkinann (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the trouble, but Ilooked over your ‘Women in Comics' listings and nearly all of those pages do not meet the criteria you're making Ms. Anderson’s page meet. I understand now though, after reading Takenouchi’s kerfluffle, why it’s suddenly a big issue- so thanks for bringing that to light. I’m curious if all the women on that ‘Women in Comics’ list will get the same attention.

As for articles to notability, I did list the PWCW article about Anderson entitled ‘I Want My Boys Love’ which is essentially about Anderson and her debut book; whereas the other interview Anderson did with Anime News Network is just her thoughts on ‘gay comics and yaoi’. It’s going to be hard to find articles about niche-creators that aren’t ‘interviews’ or ‘informative pieces’ on genre-that said, she has been noted in third-party items she did not contribute to –AfterElton’s weekly report citing GloBL issues involving Dramaqueen and the title ‘Off Beat’ from Tokyo Pop: http://www.afterelton.com/blog/lylemasaki/week-in-gay-geek-43-yaoi-press-dramaqueen-rush-off-beat-eternitys-child (which I did cite in regard to her creating for Dramaqueen) and again at The Comics Reporter’s Flipped Column where Anderson is mentioned briefly http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/briefings/flipped/17968/ in regard to Diamond Comics new minimums policy and its effect on manga and small publishers. The point is, these are two journalists for legitimate online publications that have noted Anderson as an author, cited work by her, and how it pertains to the medium their discussing. They’re not fans, they’re not fandom bloggers. I hope this counts for something? Clsazekiel (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping users of Wikipedia from making articles which don't meet the guidelines, although you would have to ask the person who put the notability template on this page about their future plans. Unfortunately, the AfterElton article and The Comics Reporter's article probably can't be factored in for notability, as they only mention Tina Anderson in passing, and "significant coverage" is the benchmark. --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)