Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Cochran

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 delete. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Stacey Cochran

Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Published author [1]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• A reluctant Keep. Although this is a POV vanity article complete with photos from the family album, Stacey does have a claim to notability, so I say we give him 30 days to rewrite - if not, we delete. Madman 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Delete due to this being a vanity page. He certainly seems to know how to spread his name around, but has done nothing notable in my book. Madman 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He is, unfortunately, notable. Crunch 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with tags - possibly inappropriate tone. How do we deal with vanity of someone who is notable? -- Astrokey44|talk</ small> 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable author but contents of page require rewrite to bring the tone of the language in-line with encyclopædic standards. -- (aeropagitica)  07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published author with several titles on his name. If you think it needs a rewrite, either tag it for cleanup or do it yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And while not enough to make someone notable in itself, I think being a finalist for an Isaac Asimov Award makes it a more than average author. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also wrote reviews for Plots with guns (major ezine). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it that Alexa users aren't reading magazines. - 131.211.210.17 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's self-published with a PoD publisher, which do show up on Amazon, does it really count as "published?" -Will 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He hasn't won any of those awards, and he's only sort of a published author: it's a vanity press[2] (yes, I know notable work can be published this way, but publishing this way does not make one notable--Samuel J. Howard 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No it's a POD printer. Vanity presses cheat you out of loads of money before printing, Lulu doesn't. Besides, publishing with "a vanity press" doesn't automatically make your book non-notable either. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

either way, the point is the same it's an author mill and publication there says nothing about notability.--Samuel J. Howard 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• delete per Samuel J. Howard. Durova 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with SJH. We are too lenient on these self-authored vanity projects when a vague case for notability can be made. If the subject is notable, let someone else recreate a less noxious entry later on, but in the interim kill this. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Isaac Asimov award makes him notable. Fight bias against SF writers on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He did not win the award, he was merely a finalist. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a science fiction reader and I voted to delete. I would also delete any other self-published non-award-winning writer. Durova
  • He won an honorable mention for one story in 1998 in a contest for college undergrads. [3] That hardly makes him notable. -Will 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I won four awards in graduate school and was a finalist for others. That doesn't make me notable. Durova 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Neutral per comments on this page (especially the NaNoWriMo spamming). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, sufficiently notable. I see enough copies of his books on used sites to extrapolate a reasonable print run. -Colin Kimbrell 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. (1) Notability - One can either believe the claim (made on the talk page) of having several times exceeded the limit of 5,000 copies sold, or ask for proof. I believe the claim as per Colin Kimbrell's and my own observations. (2) Autobiographical - this is discouraged but not forbidden. We always have WP:NOR, WP:CITE, etc. so anyone who does not believe what is stated in the article can ask for references from reputable sources. There is a reason why posting an autobiography is discouraged, but it is not impossible to do an acceptable job. And remember, it's just the start - like all editors, Stacey should be prepared for his edits to be mercilessly edited by others. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You say it's "just a start". On the contrary, the record shows he had edited his autobiography of an article over 30 times starting back in September. He shows up on the History page as 12.214.7.234. Madman 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if only because Stacey achieved minor notoriety in 2004 for spamming thousands of NaNoWriMo participants. In spite of his unremarkable writing, he is notable for his relentless self-promotion, which should be reflected in the article. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Let's not encourage authors of dubious notability to spam their way to the pages of Wikipedia. It's my belief that any vanity pages should be speedy deletions. If you build it, they will come-- and if you truly are notable, surely a reader will create an NPOV page for you. Ipsenaut 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's relentlessly defending his notability on the article's Talk page, too. What happened with NaNoWriMo? -Will 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stacey incurred the wrath of many NaNo users, but I don't recall any official administrative action. I've pasted his spam on the talk page. The best part of the story is his reply to one of his spam victims: "I was just trying to make friends, you jerk." Shoehorn 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Changing to Delete -- He continues to revert changes to the page which refer to his notorious spam episode. Since he is unwilling to acknowledge this episode, he doesn't even deserve this much notoriety. Shoehorn 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Author is not published in the traditional sense; his books are available only via a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no verification that he meets the minimum audience standards for author notability. The Asimov award sounds notable, but it's given only to college students who have never published professionally. In fact, it's not clear that he's ever been published professionally -- his almost-prize-winning mystery novel seems to have been turned down by the publisher that sponsored the prize. (His magazine appearances seem to be mostly in semi-professional magazines.) There are thousands of local bands around the US that have bigger followings than this guy does, but they don't get articles. Monicasdude 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No real disagreement; I was responding to the argument that being a "published" author was notable in and of itself. I don't think being "published" through Lulu is evidence of notability because anybody who wants to can be "published" through Lulu. Monicasdude 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd argue four things at this point.

1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.

From the article's Talk page: "With regard to the validity of the article, Wikipedia is clear on this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I have met this criteria several times over the past fifteen years as a writer". We cannot vote away articles per WP:BIO if they pass one or more "inclusion criteria" (though other arguments can be brought forward to delete an article).  AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2.) small-magazines are for writers more like what journals are for academics (see: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics) than like the journals envisioned in WP:BIO

It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O  AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. We simply have somewhat different expectations of the outcome of the discussion of this proposed guideline. But I think your point will be difficult to defend as long as the guideline has not reached consensus and I'm also not sure it is consistent with the 5,000 cutoff point (WP:BIO). AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

4.)The previous finalists who seem to have articles in wikipedia have other claims for notability Frank Wu's article says he won a Hugo award, Sean Williams is a New York Times Bestseller List author, Mary Turzillo won a Nebula Award, and Dave Wolverton's case is less clear, but it seems he's won and now judges the Writers of the Future award and his article alleges he holds a (minor) world record.

--Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that just wasn't clear to me from a quick examination of the article. Note that this would, IMO, militate against the notability of Cochran, since Wolverton's notability is established apart from this contest finalist status--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some great edits have been made, but I think the case for notability is weaker than it was when this was first listed. We can't find a precedent for award finalists and he's self-published. This all came up after the original listing on AfD, and some of the original Keep votes were made under the assumption he won those awards and he was truly 'published.' If any are still paying attention to this, coming in and reevaluating might be helpful in getting this wrapped up. -Will 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I detect a pattern here: [4] He is anonymously editing himself spuriously into other articles where his own relevance is dubious at best. Cleaning up that mess now. Will 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seen it too. He placed himself above Pulitzer winners on the list of alumni of his alma mater as an 'award-winning novelist' (we have established he hasn't actually won any awards). He has gone so far as to denigrate esteemed authors (e.g. Philip K. Dick) with completely unfounded comparisons to himself. Ipsenaut 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• He[5] is deleting the spam paragraph:

In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [6]

He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. At this point, I see nothing left in the entry that is questionable, and his short fiction publications meet the eligibility criteria regardless of whether or not his novels are self-published. I am a new user on Wikipedia and wondered how information was monitored. Now I know, and I'm glad to see that the article has been cleaned up. I believe he is notable, however, and the article should remain. --jlgssk 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have reason to believe the above is a sock puppet account created by the estimable Mr. Cochran, or else someone affiliated with him. Is it typical for new users-- who coincedentally teach writing and research in a college-- to start off their Wikipedia careers with obscure AfD discussion pages, and make no other edits? Ipsenaut 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

jlgssk, see WP:AFD: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)."  AvB ÷ talk 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [7], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting absurd. He changed his name in the above post from 'John G' to 'Susan.' [8] We all forget things occasionally, but I think this is adequate evidence of shenanigans. -Will 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well spotted Will. Sock puppet hadn't signed in so got caught red-handed. Can be added to the article as another example of "harebrained schemes". jlgssk's Keep vote should be disregarded. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Susan's my wife. Her vote should be disregarded. You can't imagine how much trouble this has caused her and I today. Please delete the article. Stacey12.214.7.234 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you and retract the "sock puppet" designation. Most other Wikipedians will, however, view Susan as your straw man now... Anyway, the AfD now has to run its course and outright deletion is not possible. But even Adam Curry's article isn't as harsh about his faux pas - it may well serve as the template for moderating the language about your perceived misdeeds later on, should the article be kept. AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough, despite hairbrained schemes. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure vanity: vanity article, vanity edits, and vanity publications. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Note that he never actually won any of the awards cited, he was only a finalist. All of his books are published by a 'vanity press' publisher. The subtext here is that he couldn't find a regular publisher to take him on. Atrian 04:53, 17 January 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.