Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Tyree

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 was delete. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Tyree

Nathan Tyree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete seems like a resumé, yet a lot of different people seem to have edited his page in the past, which might imply some degree of importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 03:57, August 21, 2007.
  • Delete - Yeah but the mayority of the where anon users, probably local fans or a fanclub. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm the anon user who removed the tag. I did comment on why (article's talk page)- I planned on attempting to improve the article by adding sources, but have not had time. I vote to keep as the article is fixable. I've already started compiling sources for the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 13:40, August 21, 2007.
  • He's a vanity-press author: how are you gonna fix THAT? Oh, and Geocities? Not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, geocities can go. But 3:am, Bookmunch, time out new york (still compiling here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 21, 2007.
  • A short events listing -- of which the subject is only a participant, no less -- probably generated by a press release (Time Out) and an unsigned listing of some sort (3 A.M.)? These are your sources? You're truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

also at www.dogmatika.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

  • DELETE - Vanity Press author with little credit. No reliable sources from respected sites. Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself, this cannot be considered anything other than self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 21, 2007.
  • "Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself". Where? Link please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:15, August 21, 2007.
  • Was that a question or a statement? --Calton | Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asking where these self reviews are. I can't find them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
  • That's unfair for a few reasons. 1. that isn't a review, it's an interview. 2. although it quotes from some sources that said favorable things, it isn't in itself 'favorable'. It's an interview. 3. that interview has been there for years, but (per his blog) he only got the job at bookmunch a couple months ago (june 1). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 20:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)


"His debut novel, Mr. Overby is Falling (PublishAmerica), was favorably compared to Fight Club and American Psycho" this is my favourite line. I've been unfortunate enough to read that book and if some respected critic compares it favourably I'll eat my hand. Can anyone find a reference for such a claim? And if it is out there, have they researched who said it?


  • Five mionutes on google gave me both favorable and unfavorable comparisons to this book and Fight Club.

Don't think any of those are PRO reviewers (but I don't think that the article said that they were).


http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655 http://awriterscult.com/community/showthread.php?t=14772&page=4 http://www.weirdears.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=42296 http://uk.geometry.net/search_ad.php?mode=books&searchtype=list&search=R399J77RLML7ES&productname=Best%20thrillers%20of%202006 www.librarything.com/work/7528 blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=82916927&blogID=142039761&Mytoken=A9

The big seems to be here: http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655

"Obviously Mr. Overby is a dark and at times unpleasant and horrific book. There are hints of Bret Easton Ellis (particularly American Psycho) but also Chuck Palahniuk (who is a big fan of yours) and Jean Paul-Sartre (particularly Nausea)." -Peter Wild


"A few of my friends first latched on to you as a result of spotting you mentioned on the Chuck Palahniuk website. How do you feel about all of the fans you've garnered as a result of the Chuckmeister's patronage? " - Peter Wild —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

   * Neither of these sources give 'favourable' reviews in comparison. They say that there are elements of similarities, but these do not favour Tyree's writing over Fight Club or American Psycho.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk) 10:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong- I actually now lean toward deletion. He isn't that notable. But, there is a lack of civility here and despite the fellows lack of notoriety there is no need to to get snarky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Reviews on Amazon and such sites can easily be manipulated as has been done before. Indeed, reviewers of his book may have been created purely to give favourable reviews, many have only done one review - his book. No hard evidence but definatly possible. References above are unusual. Is there any reference to show Chuck's approval of Tyree as this interviewer suggests? And isn't this reference you've given the same as Tyree's own?

I don't think it's Tyree's own, as it were. That suggestion has been in the article since it's inception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk)

This 76.7.196.230 appears to be his ip 63.76.154.130 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete — Does not appear to be notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're missing the point!

  • KEEP - and this is why:
All the above Delete comments use a reason such as "appears to be" or my favorite, "probably local fans or a fanclub." Unless those can be demonstrated, there is no defined reason to delete. Yes, the article is UGLY, but it has also been around for more than a year and a half. If it's so non-notable, why is it only now up for deletion? Vanity articles on Wikipedia tend to be deleted very fast!
I am not saying that I think this is particularly notable, but this entire longwinded argument is empty, baseless, and biased from a strong "I know better and my view is the only view" POV. All the "appears" and "probablys" in the world are worthless unless backed up. The above sounds like the article itself, unreferenced. Instead of whining about it, put the unreferenced tag on the article (note: Nobody had done that even... is that laziness or oversight?) and ee what happens.
My Keep is with the provision that the article needs to continue to be improved and it needs to become better referenced. I think Wikipolocy is perfectly sufficient for that. Perhaps in another month or so this issue can be revisited, but the time is not right now for the lynch mob to unilaterally delete an article with a no-substance (false) rationale.
VigilancePrime 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What part of "sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author" uses the phrase "appears to be"? Which part of that defined reason did you miss during your vigorous handwaving? And speaking of missing the point, regarding your faith-based rationale: nope, you've got it backwards: the onus is on the ones making the claims of notability to back them, not for detractors to disprove them. To recap:
  • Vanity-press (PublishAmerica) author.
  • No reliable sources (see above for the dissections)
  • No evidence of real-world impact or notice -- and it's the responsibility of anyone claiming otherwise to offer evidence to the contrary.
  • Any questions? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton, etc. Vanity publisher with no achievements impressive enough to really distance himself from the hordes of others. -Elmer Clark 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton, et al --Ebyabe 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to question Peter Wild, who is he? All significant quotes mentioned stem from him. Please give a link to his profile and resume of success in literary reviews for weight to his descriptions of Tyree's efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.102.252 (talk)


Okay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/04/26/260407_mif_perverted_feature.shtml


http://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=900252


http://www.wordriot.org/template_2.php?ID=1177

http://www.serpentstail.com/content_item?id=136

63.76.154.130 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A lot of sloppy argumentation on the Keepist side on this one. --Agamemnon2 23:20, 23 August 2007 (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.