Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Horlor

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 keep. John254 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Horlor

Sean Horlor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Article about Sean Horlor written by Sean Horlor. Completely non-notable poet whose two little chapbooks both fail WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • While the AUTO and COI concerns are legitimate, the reviews of his book Made Beautiful by Use (ISBN 1-897109-13-X) appear to confer some notability. Not sure what the policy is on a valid article that happens to have been written by the subject. Powers T 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment:Verifiable, NPOV, NOR articles are fine. If there are enough sources so that the article can be cleaned up for WP:NPOV by balancing the COI and removing OR, then it should be kept. I, personally, haven't decided if there are enough sources yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Keep. Powers T 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out the errors in my posting. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's ethical guidelines and understand why it's a conflict of interest for me to post this article, despite keeping it as factual and objective as possible. The reviews of my work posted on Wikipedia are the unsolicited opinions of objective literary critics. My poetry as it appears in the Seminal Anthology is being studied at the University of British Columbia. My work is also being studied by high school students in Nanaimo, Canada, and perhaps other places that I am not aware of. This thankfully proves (to me at least) that I am not "non-notable" or that my books are failures. And hey, detractors and naysayers are a sign that I'm doing something right! Thanks for your feedback! Seanhorlor (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While articles which violate WP:COI and WP:AUTO should always be reviewed for WP:NPOV issues, they don't automatically need to be deleted if valid sources are available. And they are: Xtra! West, The Georgia Straight and This Magazine all come up on the very first page of a Google search on him. And continuing the search, he's been reviewed or published in The Malahat Review, The Claremont Review, Prairie Fire, Grain, Arc Poetry and The Fiddlehead, which is a pretty solidly notable selection of Canadian literary magazines. So all in all, that clears my bar. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Bearcat's research that he beat me to. This is fine at the dead minimum for stub-length article, and can always grow later like any other short article. The subject made a mistake in writing it himself, but we don't expect people to know all the rules and special jargon here when starting. Mistakes happen. If the article itself is fine in the end and compliant with our needs and policies, no big deal. Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite violating the Wiki guideline for autobiographies, the author is still notable as stated above. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don't really see the article as "bigging up" the subject. References are acceptable in terms of verifiability. Notability already established by Bearcat, would be foolish to delete on WP:COI grounds alone. The editor could find numerous meatpuppets to recreate the article. As long as the editor/subject is made aware of ownership issues then I can't see the article in its current editorial condition being a problem. -- BpEps - t@lk 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several publications in important Canadian literary magazines plus numerous reviews seems to meet the "Creative professionals" additional criteria of WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets notability guidelines, it appears that the author was unaware of autobiography guidelines. No need to punish him for that. --BelovedFreak 10:15, 12 April 2008 (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.