Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Joolz 21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Wright and Elastic Press

  • Delete I am nominating this page for deletion as it nothing more than a vanity piece, created by the subject, and contains promotional material, dubious claims, and more nostalgia than neutrality. Connor Wolf 15:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another vanity piece. John Self 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something from a reputable source can verify he is worth having an article on. Article is mostly gibberish. - Taxman Talk 04:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Taxman, after doing a bit of research into the guy I've found out that he is forever destined to be a smalltime self-publisher (about 2,500 copies in a printrun) with literary delusions. Constantly comparing himself to Michael Moorcock, Clive Barker, Stephen King, and JK Rowling, when it's obvious that a two year old's scribblings make more sense. He also writes reviews of his own books on the Amazon sites and spams book forums under numerous guises. His writing needs work, by the way. And bandages. Connor Wolf 11:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hang on a minute! This is a joke. This guy Connor Wolf started the Sean Wright Wikipedia page. Check out the history. He started it with all kinds of crap about Sean Wright. He continiues to hound Mr Wright, paw over his every word on his website. The guys an internet stalker. Amazingly, his buddy John Self (so called reviewer) not only continue to hound unprovoke Mr Wright, but they've started a hate campaign via http://www.jessejameson.blogspot.com and http://www.crapauthors.com. This call for a deletion from two unstable characters such as Connor Wolf (Dave Briggs of Ely) and John Self (John Simpson from Belfast)who also run another hate-filled and prejudice site is highly questionable at best and just simply wrong at worst. Again, the facts are clear. Look at the history on wikipedia regarding this so-called deletion. Connor Wolf bagan this. Look at the other crap he has spouted about any reputable author connected with Sean Wright and Crowswing Books. This guys (John and Connor) are duping you. They spread shit wherever they can. Check them out!

    If this article is deleted (along with all the others that Connor Wolf is attempting delete in connection to Sean Wright and Crowswing) then the admin guys and girls are condoning a prejudice, dirty tricks campaign that began on Palimpsest.org.uk 21 months ago! These two guys need deleting from Wikipedia, not Sean Wright and Crowswing Books, or any other legitimate author connected with Crowswing. For God sake check out the facts!!! Wikipedia's reputation depends on it. The following authors are involved with Crowswing Books (who are NOT a vanity publisher, far from it). Many of these authors have long and notable publishing careers. Allen Ashley, Andrew Hook, Michael Mirolla, Gary Moeser, Lisa DuMond, Gary McMahon, Che Ballard, Jeff Gardiner, Sam Mills, P. Grey, Sian Orthello, Graham Joyce, Joel Lane, John L. Probert, Michelle Ponto, Paul Finch, James Cooper, Gary Fry, Ramsey Campbell, David A Sutton, Stephen Jones, Jeff Gardiner, Ken Alden, Peter Tennant, Geoff Maloney and Sean Wright. If you take the time to check out these authors you WILL find that many have been nominated or won the World Fantasy Award, British Fantasy Award, or International Horror Guild Award. These are legitimate, reputable, verifiable awards. Do a bit of research - in the name of sanity and fair play.
  • Unsigned user above: please refer to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. Discussion should be restricted to the article and its merits and demerits as an entry on Wikipedia, and should not be about the people posting the article or those arguing for retention or deletion. John Self 21:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned user above: If you were to look at the history of this page you will see that I did not create it at all. You are accusing me of being someone else, which is fine, but you should stick to the discussion at hand. This article is a vanity piece created from an unregistered user and all the other articles related to it also since they are promotional and not informative. I've taken a look into the authors you mention and the only one of any note was Ramsey Campbell, whom you have not published. Having explored the BFS site it appears to be nothing more than a hive for backslapping on ill-conceived fiction. Connor Wolf 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Considering YOU - Connor Wolf - began the Sean Wright page on Wikipedia, I find your argument rather hollow and confused. As can be seen from the list of edits and discussions, this article has developed in the spirit of neutrality. Check out the ealiest history to see that it was so. Connor Wolf lies through his canine teeth. Here's Connor's first attempted, referring EVERY review of Sean Wright's books over to one site - his site!!! at Palimpsest.org.uk [[1]
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_Wright"
  • Unsigned user above: (who is, most likely, [Sean Wright]]) I don't have a site and I did not create this page; only edited it. So, for the last time, I am not the person you think I am. Believe me, I've read those reviews and - having only had experience of Jaarfindor - I can wholeheartedly agree with the people who wrote them. Try to understand, however, that although that site may have a campaign against you, Connor Wolf is not a member of it. Believe me, your writing is that bad that it's not unlikely other people will begin to question why you bother, like I did. Connor Wolf 08:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable vanity spam. DreamGuy 05:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Revert and Protect This block of text was deleted from the article as part of a reversion by an anonymous user:

    He has also been caught contributing favourable reviews to book forums and Amazon sites under a variety of names, including Jude McBride, Greta Shay and jessejamesonfan. He has also been caught, contrary to the Wikipedia rules, editing his own profile to make himself sound better than the reality.

    I suspect that the article was reverted to undo a set of changes that put it into a less praising light. (A diff before and after the reversion)
    I suggest that the article be reverted to this state and locked so that whoever-it-is can't keep changing it. Aryaniae 09:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written article with little basis in fact or anything of note. I see no reason for it to remain. It appears to be more of a joke than anything else. Dario Piazzoli 11:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Let's not agonize over this one; this nonsense article and its VfD appear to be some kind of troll, probably due to someone who thought it would be funny to make us go through this.---CH (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article pretty much makes clear that it is about a non notable subject (self-publishing, currently a school teacher...who cares?) Paul 14:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Another good reason to delete: once the article is gone, the petty, irrelevant bickering might disappear too. Paul 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite numerous comments above, this afd nomination was not listed on an afd daily subpage. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. I don't want to allow this one to go down as no consensus. This is obviously some kind of trolling, by one or both sides of the above, and is not helpful in trying to write an encyclopedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The discussion page reads just like it was one person making the whole thing up under different usernames. Astrokey44 11:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Astrokey44, Taxman—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 13:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, multiple personalities included.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and find a way to speedy related contributions, as apparently there's a pattern. Friday (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. -- DS1953 19:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There's certainly vanity writing in the articles, but there's something odd going on with the pressure to remove all references to a small press publisher which appears to meet the notability standards. Monicasdude 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I agree with Monicasdude. Needs revising though to take out the vanity stuff. User:jamlover 22.44 20 September 2005(UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. There's just no need for this. Mike 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if vanity-related material is removed. References to being featured on BBC and nominated or winning British Fantasy Award satisfy notability. HOWEVER if this is a hoax entry, then by all means delete. 23skidoo 17:29, 23 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.