The result was delete. yandman 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete apparent vanity page for a writer, sourced to his own works. An editor wanted speedy but there seems to be some vague claim to notability here, so let's go through the process and delete it the unspeedy way. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I can only reiterate what I said in my initial discussion. Any "notability" here is an illusion. I did thorough research on the author in question. There are no copies of his work at bookstores, not even reputable online bookstores. I'm not sure how much more needs to be discussed. How can a self-published writer with no apparent following be considered "encyclopedic"? Over the years, and my time on Wikipedia, I've seen far more notable writers than Joseph Crow Riley get deleted instantly, and they were actually published by true publishers! If you can demystify the "vague claim to notability," which must exist outside himself, then perhaps we can keep this discussion going. Otherwise, I believe it's completely absurd to allow an author to write their own page and self-cite. Furthermore, he added his own "caution" tags to protect himself from deletion and to fool editors and administrators into looking over the page as if it's something authentic in progress. Check the history. Again, after conducting several hours of research, there is no way this author should be on Wikipedia.
Thepagemakerandchecker (
talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Another thing to bring to your attention. He called his first poem THE ONE "highly acclaimed" yet there's no mention of it anywhere. I would think a highly acclaimed poem would be easy to track down whether online or offline, but that's not the case here. It's clearly self-promotion with no credible sources.
Thepagemakerandchecker (
talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. yandman 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete apparent vanity page for a writer, sourced to his own works. An editor wanted speedy but there seems to be some vague claim to notability here, so let's go through the process and delete it the unspeedy way. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I can only reiterate what I said in my initial discussion. Any "notability" here is an illusion. I did thorough research on the author in question. There are no copies of his work at bookstores, not even reputable online bookstores. I'm not sure how much more needs to be discussed. How can a self-published writer with no apparent following be considered "encyclopedic"? Over the years, and my time on Wikipedia, I've seen far more notable writers than Joseph Crow Riley get deleted instantly, and they were actually published by true publishers! If you can demystify the "vague claim to notability," which must exist outside himself, then perhaps we can keep this discussion going. Otherwise, I believe it's completely absurd to allow an author to write their own page and self-cite. Furthermore, he added his own "caution" tags to protect himself from deletion and to fool editors and administrators into looking over the page as if it's something authentic in progress. Check the history. Again, after conducting several hours of research, there is no way this author should be on Wikipedia.
Thepagemakerandchecker (
talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Another thing to bring to your attention. He called his first poem THE ONE "highly acclaimed" yet there's no mention of it anywhere. I would think a highly acclaimed poem would be easy to track down whether online or offline, but that's not the case here. It's clearly self-promotion with no credible sources.
Thepagemakerandchecker (
talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
reply