Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Stanek

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

I don't see the sense in arguing over this page. Let's delete it, and move on.

I propose deleting Robert Stanek page to end controversy, and move on to other pages. My vote to delete the rest of the Robert Stanek pages as well. Eakers4 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete all I agree. It's not worth fighting over. It is a shame wikipedia seemed to be a cool place, but everyone's so hateful. Next thing you know they'll be yanking the Chris Paolini pages. Soulrunner 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Isn't that kind of a non-sequitur? What's the connection? Has anyone proposed yanking the Chris Paolini pages? —rodii 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today. Moe ε 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Changing vote to Keep per Alkivar's vote. Moe ε 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep guy is himself notable, his [FICTION] books are not. He has worked for 2 major publications and has clearly made a name for himself as an astroturfer.  ALKIVAR™ 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is where I get ambivalent. On the one hand, he's not a major writer, as far as can be determined. On the other hand... at least three admins here have said "oh, him" or words to that effect, which does suggest he's got at least some recognition... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I strongly suspect that the user nominating this article for deletion is a Robert Stanek sock, as is Soulrunner. Now that the Ansible controversy is mentioned on the page, there is a reason to keep it. Stanek may not be notable for his fantasy novels, but he is notable for his suspected shenanigans. Zora 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Alkivar. This person has apparently done something real (ie, contributed to the shelf on the computer bookstore that will, in immortal words of _why, crush us all one day) besides being just loud and notorious. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and verify: This process appear to be "out of process". Just put a verify sign up and come back in a couple days. --CyclePat 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination. If it stops the bickering. Jnb27 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Zora. Like it or not, Stanek is notable for the allegations of sockpuppetry in marketing his works, whether they are true or not (he said carefully). —rodii 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it Per nomination and AfD. What's going on here is it not right. It would seem there are better things to do with your time. Jnb27 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and verify. There's almost certainly something funny about this AfD. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Why wasn't this deleted already? 4.230.105.246 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today for Ruin Mist. Enough already with the personal attacks. 172.164.196.220 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with inclusion of the Ansible controversy and history on Amazon.com and Usenet. It's Interesting that those who created the page and the astroturf are now calling for its deletion. He and/or his fans have made their bed, now they're going to have to lie in it. 69.213.249.15 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Grammar edit 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete it. 69.213.249.15 should be banned already, along with the rest of them. 165.247.191.244 04:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Enuf already Bcbuff 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 4 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Tired of seeing it. Agreed 69.213.249.15 should be banned along with 69.216.236.40 at the least. This kind of crap shouldn't go on at wikipedia. 172.156.172.88 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry I should be honored, I guess... Mind enlightening me as to just exactly what I've done to merit being banned? Please be specific, and cite exact transgressions. 69.213.249.15 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Not being on the dfcsociety.org web site isn't definitive - it does require that you be in the society to be listed there, and there is a fee for membership. As proud as he seems to be of the award, though (since it seems to be mentioned prominantly in every bio I've seen), you'd think he'd be a member. There is a list available from another group of DFC recipients, but it requires proprietary PC-Only software to access. Someone on a PC might want to check it out. It's at [1] 69.213.249.15 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot! All the controversy is crap and shouldn't be included at any rate. Deepd 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 5 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ansible scruff should be removed at any rate 172.147.251.178 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Laugh. This is one of the funniest, oddest AfDs in a while. rodii 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Irrelevant Napols 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User's first edit to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated in the AFD for Ruin Mist, Stanek is an oddment. Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. Ironically, if this article is kept, it should be for those very reasons, but should be rewitten to reflect the fact that his only "fame" is through this astonishing spamming campaign, for which he (or someone who is a big fan of his) has far more talent than he does for writing fiction. In some areas of fandom, the verb "to stanek" is starting to mean "to overhype junk writing ("e.g., to say "Tis Perry Rhodan book is brilliant" would be to stanek). If you're looking for some references for all this, BTW, I can proffer [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]... overall, I'd favour a delete, though On second thoughts, the gratuitous self-promotion is probably worthy of an article - but if it is kept, it may need serious edit-protecting to stop the Stanek supporter(s) from bowdlerising it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (vote reconsidered and changed Grutness...wha? 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep as per Alkivar. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - so many anons wanting it gone makes it rater suspect. Note to other admins: If this keeps on getting keeps from real users we should speedy keep it. gren グレン 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is it that content disputes get dragged into AfDs? The article is a mess at the moment, so fix it. The subject of this article seems to me to be notable, so what about the article is against the policy? Batmanand 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for now. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zora. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable online jackass/thug. Monicasdude 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a biography on a non-notable author for a vanity press who's too dumb to know that Slavic languages are not Romance languages. Batmanand, if you feel so strongly that it needs kept, I suggest you try to fix it. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Think of it as consumer protection for fantasy-literature readers. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article exactly as it is, and keep it protected. ergot 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in a form that Stanek will hate. The more he hates it, the better the article will be doing its job of documenting a man whose vanity exceeds even that of a certain Southern Baptist preacher. Guy 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until at least this sock-puppetry subsides. Amcfreely 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with a laugh at this AFD... I will just pop in to whoever closes this that anon's votes dont count and the users in single-digit edits probably shouldn't, either. -AKMask 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable wannabe and obvious astroturfer. Book articles are probably fancruft though. Haikupoet 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This author's fame (or perhaps infamy) deserves note, if only as consumer protection. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable guy. This is a rather funny AfD, with anons telling us that we should "delete it, and move on", and that they're "tired of seeing it". You're obviously not tired of telling us about it. Grandmasterka 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in a bad way, but still notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree notable for being offensive, but that's still notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form--aka a way Stanek won't like. I've been lurking around observing the bruhaha over Stanek for awhile now and it seems to me he has become notable for his astroturfing and trickery, if not for any of his writing. ArrowHead 00:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no one is entitled to a controversy-free article. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005. 4.154.208.199 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • LAUGH Let's see, that's on his publisher's web site? Just how difficult is it to be on your publisher's best seller list when you're the only author they publish? Synthfilker 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You gonna give us a source, or do we just have to take your word for that? --Calton | Talk 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kooky or not, reasonable notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is being referred to is RSS newsfeed which requires a subscription to the feed. I archived the feeds referenced above: 1. Any one can subscribe to a feed and get archives. 4.154.212.74 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • RSS newsfeed from what?? Amazon? Stanek? The NYT? My mom? rodii 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's the feeds at Audible. So this is audio books. rodii 19:49, 23 February 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Robert_Stanek_be89.html"