Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Urbancik

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. Sandstein 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Urbancik

John Urbancik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A sea of red links for an author who has published only in chapbooks and limited-edition small press. Denni ^talk 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - the article is most definitely over the top, either written by the author or his agent, but Mr Urbancik does make several decent Google hits. The page could be trimmed down to the bare essentials (i.e. without the book/article/novella reviews etc) and made encyclopaedic in tone, and then I'd change to a weak keep. Budgiekiller 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Red links have subsequently been incorrectly wiki-linked to anything but the correct articles. A number of editors have stepped in to claim notability, but the article remains weak delete - perhaps the editors could read WP:AUTO. Budgiekiller 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - could only verify 3 of the books, everything else remains redlink. Needs massive re-write. SkierRMH,08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• John Urbancik is a gifted and talented writer and if you read the positive posts about him in here from authors of great renown, you will see that the people who gave him the thumbs down are WRONG......

Urbancik is one of my favourite authors and I would be VERY disappointed if he was "deleted" from here ..... Save your deletions for others....... I thought Wikipedia would be WAY more professional than this..... Wandaful 06:38, 6 December 2006 (post fixed by Qwafl42)

• John Urbancik is certainly noteworthy enough to be listed here. He's an amazingly talented writer with real pro credits and an expanding fan base.

Brian Knight
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwafl42 (talk • contribs). {The Followig are from the John Urbancik Wiki Discussion page}

• John Urbancik has been professionally published by reputable small presses. Please see his pubishing credits on the updated John Urbancik page for proof of this. He has edited a very well-renown magazine, Dark Fluidity. He is well-respected and well-reviewed in literary cirlces, as evidenced by the Blurbs section. He is a rising star in the dark fantasy and horror genres, someone who is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

--Qwafl42 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know for certain that this page was not touched by the author, so if you are concerned about self promotion, you shouldn't be.

Dan0oo 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwafl42 (talk • contribs).

• Delete. References semm to be to "captive media" or vanity publications. WMMartin 18:06, 8 December 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.