Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Gallon

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Gallon

• Author has not published anything. Only book mentioned has been delayed until next year (statement withdrawn. AfD stands). Article is hopelessly POV and I suspect either vanity or from a paid publicist. Opening sentence has inappropriate plural and past tense. Richfife 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete: The statement that the author has not published anything is incorrect. The definition of publish is as follows: To bring to the public attention; announce. "publish." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 09 Oct. 2006. The publisher in conjunction with the author has brought public attention to this novel to the public via the following public announcement that can be found by going to the web address posted following the announcement: "Peter Lavery at Pan Macmillan has bought Darkest Days, an apocalyptic thriller by former Washington lawyer Stan Gallon." http://www.thebookseller.com/?pid=230&did=20836.

The following comments are erroneous or without sufficient substance to justify deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

• • Reply Ho boy. From Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria:

"Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book."

The book is not available yet, so this criteria can not possibly be met.

We both know perfectly well that "published" in this context means "the complete book in print currently or in the past". Cherry picking dictionary definitions is not helping. And above and beyond that, there is no significant secondary attention being paid to this book. No reviews, no chatter on literary websites, nothing but business announcements. The author's website doesn't count. You haven't denied you're a publicist, so you don't count either. - Richfife 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What is with the personal attack's here? I am saying it now: I am not a publicist!!! Further your clain stated that the book does not exist, you also stated that the book was delayed. In other words you are makling a lot of statements you cannot support. Have you spoken with the publisher? Do you know something none of us know? Where did you get the information that the book was delayed? Provide evidence for your claims. Unsupportable conclusory statements have no place here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

• *(multiple votes aren't allowed)DO NOT Delete: The following comment posted by OBM | ^{blah blah blah} is without sustance and is simply ludicrous. If User:Onebravemonkey has nothing more to say than "sockpupetry' (a form of name calling) the comment should be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

• • Reply Sockpuppetry is a serious allegation about the very common practice of contributing to an article under multiple guises to create an illusion of public support. The substance of their post, however, is that they agree with the nomination. - Richfife 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Then provide your supporting evidence that this has occured or is occuring. Otherwise read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV before you engage in name calling and insults.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

I take it you have given up on attempting to argue the merits of this article and now have taken to simply harassing other users. Well done. IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. There's also the slightest hint of sockpuppetry. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OBM | ^{blah blah blah}please read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV before you engage in name calling and insults.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

There was no name calling or insulting in that statement. Please stop harassing other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• *(multiple votes aren't allowed)DO NOT Delete: There is no factual support for the following comment posted by --ShelfSkewed. It is contrary to logic and common sense. The book does indeed exist. The author himself can be researched via Pan Macmillan's website. The following is proof of the existance of the novel: "Peter Lavery at Pan Macmillan has bought Darkest Days, an apocalyptic thriller by former Washington lawyer Stan Gallon." http://www.thebookseller.com/?pid=230&did=20836.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

• • Reply Again you are cherry picking definitions. By non-existent, they meant unpublished. - Richfife 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion and a mischaracterization of the facts. Choosing to ignore a dictionary definition simply because it does not suit you is not a valid reason to mischaracterize the truth for the sake of proving your point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

In the interest of fairness the comment posted below by --ShelfSkewed must be stricken.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as above. Unknown author, non-existent book. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as noted above, this author isn't notable as he has yet to be published. He isn't well known. IrishGuy ^talk 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I don’t understand these arguments. Wikipedia allows people to write about themselves or projects they have a strong personal involvement, as long as the article maintains a neutral point of view and verifiable. The focus of the arguments should be on neutrality and verifiability. On the neutrality, it is not too difficult to judge. If anyone thinks something is not neutral, point the portion out. On the verifiability, I don’t know how anyone can really verify where a person is born, who are their parents, …, unless you are the government. Regarding this specific case, the writer or his publicist claimed that “Macmillan Publishers bought Darkest Days in August of 2006.” So Wikipedia can verify with Macmillan whether they bought Stanley Gallon’s Darkest Days. Notability is not a requirement for Wikipedia articles. No one should be penalized for lack of notability. Wikipedia should not become a privilege for celebrities.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorgreen (talk • contribs) — Blueorgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Reply Notability IS a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia: Notability rules. If you wish to rebut those rules, you should do so on the talk page for that article: Notability talk page. - Richfife 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, vanity possible spam article.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Where is Funky Monkey's evidence that this is a vanity or a spam article? I’m tired of this new culture of accusing people of “serious allegations” without providing supporting evidence. There are many people on Wikipedia that are not “well known”. That’s the purpose of Wikipedia, to provide information that people may not know. Being signed by a major publisher is notable enough, it means the book will be published and it is irrelevant whether the book is on the market today or will be a few months from now. The author provided two sources, bookseller.com and the publisher's website, thereby satisfying the mutliple secondary sources requirement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorgreen (talk • contribs)
  • Reply Considering that you only registered on Wikipedia several hours ago, you tire very easily. The issue before all other issues is Notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. Other websites are, Wikipedia is not. There are literally thousands of websites where this content is welcome. MySpace comes to mind. There is no reason that it has to be on Wikipedia. Even if the book is published, it still may not meet notability standards. The fact that a large publisher is publishing it is not enough. It also has to be a success and make a notable mark on the public consciousness. Quibbling that it absolutely positively will be published isn't the point. If you have a problem with Wikipedia notability rules, take it up here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Do not take it up here. This is not the place for it. The fact that you only seem concerned that this article be allowed in clearly labels you as someone with an outside interest in the Gallon's public profile. - Richfife 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As yet unpublished author of little note. Resolute 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• It is irrelevant when I signed up. I'm very interested in Stanley Gallon's novel. Just like you are attacking the article about him, I'm defending it. Of course, it should not be a big deal at all whether the article be published by Wikipedia or not, but that is not the point. Right now I am here for the sake of argument, just like you are. If you act so much like a Wikipedia expert, what is Wikipedia's official definition of "notability"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.221.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Reply Notability Guidelines - Richfife 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an author of a book from a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems wikipedia is trying to create a society of elitists rather than an informational database. Let's put this in simple terms. Fact: Stanley Gallon is an author. Fact: Stanley Gallon is published by Macmillan. Fact: Macmillan is a MAJOR publisher. Fact: it can be verified that Stanley Gallon is being published by Macmillan on a specific date from at least three sources: Macmillan itself, Bookseller.com, and Publisher's Lunch, which I found by doing a simple Google search. With so much arbitrary value judgement being considered in the process, it begs the question as to whether Wikipedia is a reliable source of information or just another fluff site pandering to "famous people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the fact is that Gallon may be published by Macmillan. He isn't yet published. Things can, and sometimes do, change between acquisition and publication. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. A single book by an unknown auther isn't of sufficient wide interest. IrishGuy ^talk 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply If you do not like Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, please discuss it here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Pretty please? With a cherry on top? The fact that so many people who have never contributed before are coming to this page and making exactly the same arguments over and over again strongly smells of sock puppetry. - Richfife 16:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Darkest Days sound like a very interesting book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

...says the guy with only two edits, both of which are this AfD... IrishGuy ^talk 16:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I read Stanley Gallon's websites. If the book writes what it said there, I would recommend to all my friends. Hi, IrishGuy, what's the matter? You don't like the subject matter of the book? Sounds like your opinion is more politically motivated than anything else. 139.85.254.32 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Richfife, except name calling, you are good for nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

I haven't made any comments about the subject matter of the book. None. Please read WP:CIV before continuing your personal attacks and insinuations about myself and Richfife. IrishGuy ^talk 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• From what I am reading on this forum, neither of you guys are making any worthwhile argument. Instead, you are calling people sockpuppet, that's the only thing you guys are good at. Personal attacks are made by you guys, not by me. I only asked you questions. Now you are pretending to be victims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

If that is what you believe, then you haven't been reading what is written. This person doesn't meet the notability criteria. He hasn't yet been published and he isn't well known. Also, it isn't rude to point out when a new editor has only made edits in an AfD. It is common to do so as it usually illustrates a single purpose account and/or a sockpuppet of another account. IrishGuy ^talk 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pls do not use jargon with me. I don't know what are you talking about. What is AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

AfD = Articles For Deletion. IrishGuy ^talk 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the entire article and click on the blue text to go to other pages as they are referenced. Instead of transcribing reams of documentation about Wikipedia policies here, Wikipedia editors add links to pages where they can be found. - Richfife 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your logic doesn't make sense. I found this Wikipedia article on "Stanley Gallon" google search after I read about Darkest Days on the author's websites. I like the book's premise, that's why I participate in this forum. Are you going to brand every new editor coming to AfD "sockpuppet" if they oppose your opinions? It's strange that two of you guys live on this forum. Are you sockpuppets? -- see, at least I asked, not like you just branded people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
  • OK, you're not a sockpuppet. And I post under my real name, so I'm not either. And I assume by now you've read the notability guidelines and what Wikipedia is not and are ready to make an argument based on those criteria? - Richfife 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
  I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
  So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
  Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
  I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
  But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
  So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
• To date you have attempted to censor other editors comments: [1], you have attempted to remove the discussion from the log: [2] (also censorship) and, right now, you have refused to follow the procedure I've repeatedly pointed out and taken your complaints about Wikipedia's notability policy to the right place. Please don't try to grab the moral high ground. - Richfife 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Excuse Me? Now you are making personal attacks on me? Wow. This is truly amazing. I can see now why the other people posting are expressing frustration with this website. this entire forum is a joke. It is clear that whoever you are, Richfife, you have an personal agenda about this article. For the life of me I can't figure it out. I have not argued repeatedly about notability issues. I am not taking a moral highground. I am simply explaining why I wrote this article. It is utterly disgusting how you have demonstrated a pattern of insults and personal attacks in this forum toward anybody who disagrees with you. You should be ashamed of yourself. You take this far too personally and have clearly strayed from the facts of any discussion here. I have provided background information on the process through which this article came to be and all you have done is insult and show nothing but contempt for me and the other people who have posted here. You make unfounded arguments and assumptions that are unsupported. Every opinion expressed that you disagree with, you have written off as "sockpuppetry" and now you are trying to slander me and my intentions. You are a bully who likes kicking people when they are down. You apparently seem to enjoy denegrating other people. If you are representative of wikipedia then you are a violation of what I read somewhere that Wikipwedia is a comunity based in mutual respect. You are very disrespectful and I resent your comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV before you continue to make accusations. IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am merely responding to the litany of insulting accusations that people are "sockpuppets" and that I am trying to take some moral highground. There is no evidence for either comment. and If Richifife is willing to withdraw his comment above I will be more than happy to remove my response for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Comments shouldn't be deleted during an AfD. Richfife didn't call you names he simply pointed out where you have willfully violated procedures and attempted to censor criticism. You, however, called him a bully who likes kicking people when they are down and that he seems to enjoy denegrating other people. This is highly uncivil behavior. Please refrain from continuing in that fashion. IrishGuy ^talk 19:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, and yes I did say that richiefife is a bully because that is exactly what a person who calls people names and provides no evidence to support the name calling. That is simply stating a fact. You are choosing to catagorize it as something else because the truth doesn't suit your agenda. Stating that someone is trying to "grab the moral highground" is a value judgement and an opinion, which again Richifife has chosen not to back up. It is a condescending and insulting remark that smacks of passive agression. Again when he removes his insulting and derrogatory comment I will remove my response to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

As I noted above, comments are not to be deleted. Richfife did provide evidence with links to your behavior. You, however, simply called him names and made wild accusations about his motivations. Please remain civil. IrishGuy ^talk 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• To Richfife: I have no way to know whether it is your real name or not. Anyway. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are too vague, subject to too much arbitrary value judgment. Wikipedia does allow people to write about themselves and their projects. Neutrality and verifiability are the 2 most important criteria, other tests exist to prove these 2 criteria. It should allow more content to come in, if it wants to build its viewer base. I don't think the article owner should take off the article. Richfife and IrishGuy do not own Wikipedia - it is .org, not .com. I think a lot of people will be interested in the subject matter of the book, because a lot of people, like myself, are tired of today's politics.

I feel the book is censored here. We should not let these "sockpuppets" with political agendas succeed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Do you even understand what "sockpuppets" are? Richfife and I aren't, by any definition of the word, sockpuppets. Nor do I (I cannot speak on Richfife's behalf) have any political agenda for or against this theoretical book. This article doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you are so positive that this book will be a gigantic hit, wait until publication and then think about recreating the article. IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• In case you do not understand: A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.

You and Richfife must be sockpuppets. Both of you live on this forum all day, taking turns, and babbling the same arguments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

First, this isn't a forum. Second, a cursory examination of both or our edit histories will show that this is the first time Richfife and I have ever come in contact with each other. Third, please don't make accusations without a shred of evidence. Please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV for more information about civility. IrishGuy ^talk 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This comming from the two guys who call people sockpuppets "without a shred of evidence." Well, your comment is at the very least, evidence of hypocrisy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Actually, the evidence is clear. Multiple users with no edit history at all have magically decided to come to this AfD and start communicating using the same arguments and attacking the same editors. Additionally, an act is only hypocritical if I were to chastise someone for behavior that I myself have engaged in. Please find an instance in this AfD where I called someone a sockpuppet. IrishGuy ^talk 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of heavily loaded words like "magically" shows your emotional involvement in something that should not be such a big deal to you. The evidence you speak of does not support your claim at all. What it does support, judging from the statements made, however, is that people view your personal attacks as insulting to the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Your lack of proof that sockpuppetry is even occuring is disturbing. Also everyone who has posted anything here that disagrees with you, you called sock puppets. What you are essentially saying is:
If you have never edited or posted in Wikipedia before, then don't bother. your opinion doesn't count, it does not matter, and you are nothing but a sockpuppet.
These are the same idiotic arguments that conned this nation into a war, has allowed unbriddled corruption to abound, and has contributed to the degradation of society. The fact that people are expressing their opinions should not be discouraged by you or anyone else. Nor should those individuals be labled, branded, insulted, or called names, because you disagree with them. And by the way the evidence of your name calling in this forum, post, bulletain (or what ever it is called) is proof of your unsupported name calling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

So...to sum up...you cannot provide one instance of me calling someone a sockpuppet in this AfD. Also, you clearly haven't read WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV. Unless, of course, you simply don't care about being civil. You really aren't helping your argument at all by behaving in this manner. Please let me know when you feel like stepping down from your soapbox. IrishGuy ^talk 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, now you've lowered yourself to the same level as Richiefife. Your use of passive agressive attacks is not helping you convince anyone that you are justified in expressing your contempt for those who disagree with you. No one is standing on a soapbox, but you are clearly trying to undermine criticism by putting lables on it. When I refer to the accusations of sockpuppetry I am collectively refering to you and Richiefife together seeing as your tag team method of richiefife making the insult and your defense of his insults. That makes you complicit in his attacks. Now, if you are infact not complicit in his activity then you should post something here telling him to refrain his constant references to sockpuppetry "without a shred of evidence" to support it as unhelpful in this discussion. Also, you defended his characterization of my explanation for posting the article as "grabbing the moral highground" rather than what it actually was merely an explanation.

It is evident that you and Richiefife are not interested in discussing the merit of the article, nor to acknowledge my gesture to remove it. Instead you are more concerned with this banal argument you've chosen to engage in. Irish Guy and Richiefife it is time for the two of you to read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV.
I grow weary of your contempt and insulting behavior. Again read WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Final warning. Enough with the personal attacks. Claims like These are the same idiotic arguments that conned this nation into a war, has allowed unbriddled corruption to abound, and has contributed to the degradation of society are nothing more than someone getting up on a soapbox and making moral pronouncements. If you cannot make an argument for this article based on Wikipedia policy, then simply leave the AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To IrishGuy: why didn't you tell Richfife to "read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV for more information about civility" when he calls others "sockpuppet"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

As noted multiple times, when multiple accounts suddenly appear in an AfD with no edit histories at all and they all use the same arguments and attack the same editors, that is evidence of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean that discriminating, insulting, and judging editors who are new is totally fine in Wikipedia. You and “Richfife” have every right to attack others, just because you are veterans here. Doesn't that sound rediculous to yourself? Oh, of course not to you, you came out with that argument.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

You have NO edit history other than this AfD. You have provided no argument within Wiki policy for keeping this article. At no point have I attacked you. Anything else? IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just admit it, you are discriminating against new editors. SO WHAT I have NO edit history other than this AfD. My google search brought me here. Who said I can't make comments to support the article or oppose your opinions? Nonsense. Your earlier comment suggested I am a sockpuppet - that is not attacking? I have made arguments within Wiki policy, if you just read what I said.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

I have no intention of admitting to something that isn't true simply to edify your paranoia. Sockpuppet isn't a personal attack and frankly, I didn't call you one. And no, you have yet to provide any valid argument which illustrates how this article meets any level of the notability requirements of Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is you who said "please don't make accusations without a shred of evidence" when I said you and Richfife must be sockpuppets. - You viewed it as attack to you. You didn't call me directly, but you implied it when you told me your evidence of sockpuppet - anyone who is new to this and who oppose you and Richfife's opinions. My evidence is, as I have told you, you and Richfife are spending all day here, taking turns, babbling the same arguments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Yes, to claim that Richfife and I are the same person is an accusation devoid of merit. I didn't say it was a personal attack, I stated clearly that it was an accusation. Richfife and I aren't here all day, nor are we taking turns. But if that is evidence of something, please look through the page history and note how many times you and Edwin Roik post within a minute or two of each other. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't stand two people opposing you at the same time? you and Richfife posting an hour or two of each other (throughout the history of this "forum") is far better evidence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Had I said that I don't like two people opposing me, you might have an argument. I didn't. Which identity are you going to reply with next? I'm curious. IrishGuy ^talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am the same person as Edwin Roik, I would be superman able of changing identities and making 2 arguments at the same time. IrishGuy, when will your other identity show up? Worry about hitting your own foot? Do not delete my comment, IrishGuy, you already did once.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Stop making personal attacks. I didn't delete anything. As the edit history shows it was Patstuart who deleted your comment, not I. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • IrishGuy, Your discriminatory attitude toward someone who is posting for the first time is sickening. Let me remind you what I posted earlier and rather than taking it for what it was, it triggered another personal attack from Richifife.

I wrote: "Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

There is nothing to reply to. That isn't an argument. What you feel is wholly irrelevant. There are policies about inclusion in Wikipedia. Your inability to get a book published and admiration for those who have isn't a Wikipedia policy. There is no book. It hasn't been published yet. Therefore, this person isn't notable. At all. If his book does get published and if it does sell a notable amount of copies garnering multiple reviews from independent sources...at that point he may be worthy of inclusion. Until then, your personal feelings about him and his manuscript are completely irrelevant. IrishGuy ^talk 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that you embrace such a condescending tone when you adress people's comments. I understand now what the draw for you in this unpaid editing of wikipedia is. The draw is your ability to lord power over those who come here to simp[ly contribute. You take their work and turn it into your own little petty crusade for deletion. I pitty you Irish guy, I pitty that you cannot even use your real name, that you hide behind a mask "Irishguy," History is littered with the embarassing remnants of such personalities as yours. I am sorry that all the world is ugly to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

So...still no arguments? Just more personal attacks? IrishGuy ^talk 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll tell you what why don't IrishGuy and Richiefife, agree to delete all of the name calling and insults in here. I'll delete all of my responses to those comments and criticisms of them and lets get back to the issue at hand. Or is that level of civility not up for consideration here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

How many times do I have to explain this? There will be NO DELETING of comments from the AfD. What is said stands unless it is simply wanton vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well there you go. You are capable of editing your own remarks. the fact that you are expressly choosing not to, is additional evidence that you are pushing an agenda. That you support the name calling, the insults, and the generaly uncivilized behavior that you and Richiefife are complicit in. You would rather distract and convolude the issue rather than address it. You should withdraw form this discussion unless there is something of value you wish to contribute.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

I have nothing to edit. I have not engaged in petty personal attacks. If you cannot refrain from making wild accusations about some cabal pushing an agenda against you, then please leave the AfD. Until then, try to make an argument based on Wiki policy. Stop trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not I who came up with the sockpuppetry conspiracy theories. That was Richiefife, and you supported his allegations. Show me where I refered to a cabal? The fact that the two of you are tag teaming is evident and clear. It does not take a genius to see it. Whether the two of you know each other is irrelevant, wheter you are working in tandem or seperately is irrelevant, what I think of your relaionship or lack there of is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what is obvious and clear from reading your posts. Both of you have an agenda. Richifife started this line of attacks and suddenly you appeared to defend hiim. You still have not answered the post adressed to you above asking why you did not ask Richiefife to read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV. Why don't you answer that. He had no evidence of sockpuppetry yet repeatedly accused everyone who disagreed with him of it, like some broken record.

Why don't you answer that question IrishGuy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

I did answer. You simply continue to ignore my answers and continue on your soapboxing rampages. For the last time, stop making personal attacks. I don't know Richfife. We aren't "tag teaming". We aren't part of some grand cabal against you. My agenda is removing unencyclopedic articles like this one. Make a solid argument and stop wasting everyone's time. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's nothing more to say that's relevant to the task at hand and isn't repeating myself. Feel free to say whatever you like, just don't remove anything. - Richfife 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's grabbing for the moral highground now. Don't criticize someone then do the thing you criticize. BTW the dictionary, which you so brazenly discount, calls that hypocrisy

• Irishguy, as for your post about cabals: Perhaps a course in remedial reading is in order. I CLEARLY disavowed any reference to a cabal. Those are your words not mine.

As For what I have to say on this matter let me repeat it for your benefit. Perhaps this time Richiefife will refrain from passing valuejudgements and you will avoid defending them:

• WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
  I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
  So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
  Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
  I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
  But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
  So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Constantly repeating yourself doesn't give your comments any more weight. When you claim that everyone who opposed you has a political agenda and they are working in conjunction against you...that is a cabal. It is irrelevant that you didn't use that exact term. That is the definition of the term. Definitions come from dictionaries...which you clearly own because you keep pointing it out. IrishGuy ^talk 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're like a parot, repeating the same nonsense again and again and again. I'm sorry for your mental health if you see cabals everywhere, or at the very least are so parannoid that you beleive everyone else thinks you are in a cabal. I recomend you take some deep breaths, calm down maybe drink a glass of water and take a nap. I'm sure when you wake up all the cabals and paranoia will fade from your mind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Um...yeah...you are the one who claims that people are in cahoots against you and this article. You are the one who claims that everyone who opposes this article is acting with political agenda. Seriously. Let me know when you can formulate a valid argument. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time. IrishGuy ^talk 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't your mother tell you UMM is not a word. My goodness how obsessed can one person get. I said no such thing. But you just latch on like a leech and keep on sucking the well dry. Look, I know there are good psychiatrists in the phonebook they can talk you through this, calm you down help you smell the flowers and such. I'm sure your health insurance will cover it. Remember: deep breaths, water, and a nap. It'll help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

So...still no argument? Just more personal attacks? OK. IrishGuy ^talk 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha...IrishGuy, you need to make your argument as well. You just repeat the old stuff, which doesn't make sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Let me know when you have an argument. IrishGuy ^talk 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you have an argument as well, Irishguy or "Richfife".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

All of the policies are outlines above. This article meets none. Considering that you and Edwin will go half an hour without posting, and then suddenly both post within minutes of each other to back each other up...I don't think you are in a position to make accusations of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• you know what. This whole discussion and the attitude of Irishguy and Richiefife is completely unfair to the the subject of this article. Like I said he suggested, when I cantacted him, to wait. I got too excited and jumped the gun. So as the one who wrote the article on this author, I say delete the article. End this misserable display of uncivil attacks by Irishguy and Richiefife. Their name calling and their unsupported facts should not be a reason for deletion, however, they have succeeded in wearing me down. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies so I can't argue my points as well as someone who has apparently spent years memorizing these rules. Being new to wikipedia is clearly a disadvantage. It is even more clear that new contributors are simply not welcome. We all have to start somewhere, I started with this article, but wow, I am just flaberghasted at the ugliness here. A full day of this nonsense is too much to bare. I will no longer be posting anything on Wikipedia. It's too bad I actually liked this site before this experience. After seeing the politics behind it, I also question it's credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

So...you still have no argument? IrishGuy ^talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy and Richfife are not necessarily Wiki representatives - although if they are, it sucks - their translation of Wiki policies may not be correct. If you quit, you let them succeed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Wow. Are you having a good time talking to yourself with your two identities? IrishGuy ^talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you have only one tactic left to use, sad for you. When are you going to bring out your other identity? Guess not for a while, to avoid hitting your own foot.

• WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
  I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
  So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
  Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
  I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
  But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
  So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.

• you know what. This whole discussion and the attitude of Irishguy and Richiefife is completely unfair to the the subject of this article. Like I said he suggested, when I cantacted him, to wait. I got too excited and jumped the gun. So as the one who wrote the article on this author, I say delete the article. End this misserable display of uncivil attacks by Irishguy and Richiefife. Their name calling and their unsupported facts should not be a reason for deletion, however, they have succeeded in wearing me down. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies so I can't argue my points as well as someone who has apparently spent years memorizing these rules. Being new to wikipedia is clearly a disadvantage. It is even more clear that new contributors are simply not welcome. We all have to start somewhere, I started with this article, but wow, I am just flaberghasted at the ugliness here. A full day of this nonsense is too much to bare. I will no longer be posting anything on Wikipedia. It's too bad I actually liked this site before this experience. After seeing the politics behind it, I also question it's credibility.

• Enough is Enough I'm tired of this. These two jerks are unrelenting. DELETE THE ARTICLE IF YOU WANT I DON"T CARE ANYMORE!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

More personal attacks? It's pretty illogical to claim that you are leaving, and then turn around and repost two lengthy screeds, one of them has already been reposted twice. Are you just attempting to make this AfD more difficult to read? IrishGuy ^talk 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

except branding people, what else are you good at, IrishGuy. Do not delete, Edwin Roik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Did you just admit that you and Edwin are the same person? IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• IT IS UNFAIR – IrishGuy deleted my posting. I said: If I am the same person as Edwin Roik, I would be superman able of changing identities and making 2 arguments at the same time. IrishGuy, when will your other identity show up? Worry about hitting your own foot?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I have deleted nothing. Check the page history. As the edit history shows it was Patstuart who deleted your comment, not I. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy, the supposed "policy" guy, I would like to see you attack Patstuart. While I am making honest comments, Patstuart is vandalizing. I guess you do not want to attack your alter-ego.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

The reason I "vandalized" was that I am on recent -pages patrol, and reverted before I had a chance to see what the problem was. But actually, I realized that this person's comments were a complete attack anyway, so, if I could do it again, I wouldn't; but it's not worth adding attack comments back in. Thank you. -Patstuart 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article states no solid claims of fame, besides of a book that isn't published yet, and even that is a bit questionable until it's actually out. Lack of sourcing and a little bit essay-like and advertisatory tone doesn't help. And I find this behaviour, if one can call it that, of some editors in this debate somewhat unconstructive. Oh, as an amateur writer I know how stating good, deep, philosophical points can take a lot of words, but in this particular medium of deletion debates, conciseness and sticking to the facts counts in particular. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

finally out. No more time talking to you today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I have a delete vote somewhere in the middle of this mess that I do not want to bother looking for. Please change it to Speedy Delete per authors request. Resolute 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under the new G11 criterion. How can anyone seriously believe that the creator of the article is not the author himself or his publicist? I don't think we can argue that this guy is not a notable author on which we can find reliable third-party sources.Pascal.Tesson 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Pascal.Tesson. Really, this has gone on long enough. There are lots of articles out there, and this one shouldn't be taking up our time. johnpseudo 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Can we delete already? This does not seem complicated. The information in the article cannot be found from any outside sources; therefore, it is unverified; therefore, deletion is appropriate. Q.E.D. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 00:19, 15 October 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.