Content deleted Content added
Girth Summit (talk | contribs) →Tom Kratman: further comment |
|||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*'''Speedy keep and warn the troublemakers weaponizing the AfD process.''' It's completely transparent when the same people who started and are "delete" for the ongoing AfD attempt on the Michael Z. Williamson article started this here and are "Delete" here. [[User:Bob the Cannibal|Bob the Cannibal]] ([[User talk:Bob the Cannibal|talk]]) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Speedy keep and warn the troublemakers weaponizing the AfD process.''' It's completely transparent when the same people who started and are "delete" for the ongoing AfD attempt on the Michael Z. Williamson article started this here and are "Delete" here. [[User:Bob the Cannibal|Bob the Cannibal]] ([[User talk:Bob the Cannibal|talk]]) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
::I'm sorry, but I haven't so much as commented on the Williamson AfD (though I did put in a brief 2c at AN/I) - Kratman isn't notable. He's a troll. Not even a good one. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
::I'm sorry, but I haven't so much as commented on the Williamson AfD (though I did put in a brief 2c at AN/I) - Kratman isn't notable. He's a troll. Not even a good one. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Further comment''' I agree that the Sad Puppies debacle is covered by [[WP:BLP1E]], and does not establish notability. I've been trying to see whether it's possible to get him over the [[WP:NAUTHOR]] bar on the strength of criterion 3 - a well known body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews. I'm struggling - the best I've found is [https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781416573838 this] (plus a few other reviews of his books linked to from there) in Publishers Weekly, and [https://sanfranciscobookreview.com/product/come-and-take-them/ this] in San Francisco Book Review. I'm not sure either of these work though. The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't see how that establishes notability. The SFBR review is slightly more substantial, and has a name - but I don't think it's a staff reviewer, as far as I can work out this is a volunteer contributor (they have a link saying 'Become a reviewer'), so this is essentially [[WP:UGC]]. Would like to know what others think before !voting though. Cheers [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:03, 22 July 2019
Tom Kratman
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Tom Kratman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After multiple years of request for sourcing in talk, article is primarily self-sourced and author notability is not established. Page appears to have been created for possible promotional purposes. SlaterSteven asked for better, non-self-published sources as far back as December 2016 but they have not been found or forthcoming. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- merge with Sad Puppies In effect the only RS we have for this is about the Hugo awards controversy. One mention in an article about other people as well and a load of primary sourcing. No real evidence of any independent notability as an author.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've just removed a long disruptive statement by an IP that was the basis for my block of the IP. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: Right off the get-go, this is a tainted AfD. I'm opposed in principle to any AfD started by a SPA, given the high likelihood of sock/meatpuppery inherent. When the next two participants are an editor who really does devote much of his user page in a screed against Mr. Kratman (however much he has the most edits to the article over the last four years) and seemingly Kratman himself, this is a trainwreck in progress. I make no judgment of the subject's notability -- however much I agree that there's a lot of primary sourcing that should be stricken from the article -- which can come in a subsequent neutral AfD. Ravenswing 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight: your "speedy keep" argument comes down to the fact that though a neutral person started the AfD, the very person who seemingly has waited patiently for two and a half years for someone to post sources actually responded to the AfD, and a troll alleging that the person who asked for sources somehow has a personal vendetta even though they didn't start the AfD? That sounds less like an argument because no matter who starts this, all the troll has to do is run in screaming and you're going to give them a Heckler's veto. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge or notion that you're a "neutral" person. In nearly fifteen years at AfD, my overwhelming experience is that someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of filing an AfD is very, very seldom "neutral." Genuine first-timers to Wikipedia don't have the institutional knowledge. Ravenswing 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight: your "speedy keep" argument comes down to the fact that though a neutral person started the AfD, the very person who seemingly has waited patiently for two and a half years for someone to post sources actually responded to the AfD, and a troll alleging that the person who asked for sources somehow has a personal vendetta even though they didn't start the AfD? That sounds less like an argument because no matter who starts this, all the troll has to do is run in screaming and you're going to give them a Heckler's veto. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever it is, this isn't a speedy keep, regardless of who started the AfD. The article is indeed poorly sourced, and it's not immediately clear that the author meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm on mobile so haven't done a proper search for better sources, but this discussion needs to run its course. GirthSummit (blether) 12:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt This is a WP:BLP1E issue if I've ever seen one. A non-notable author managed to get their name on a slate produced by notable racist Vox Day for the Hugo Awards and that slate, including Kratman, led to a broad kerfuffle as described at Sad Puppies. However aside from involvement in a notable attempt to game a fan award, Kratman is a nobody of no significance within Science Fiction. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and warn the troublemakers weaponizing the AfD process. It's completely transparent when the same people who started and are "delete" for the ongoing AfD attempt on the Michael Z. Williamson article started this here and are "Delete" here. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment I agree that the Sad Puppies debacle is covered by WP:BLP1E, and does not establish notability. I've been trying to see whether it's possible to get him over the WP:NAUTHOR bar on the strength of criterion 3 - a well known body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews. I'm struggling - the best I've found is this (plus a few other reviews of his books linked to from there) in Publishers Weekly, and this in San Francisco Book Review. I'm not sure either of these work though. The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't see how that establishes notability. The SFBR review is slightly more substantial, and has a name - but I don't think it's a staff reviewer, as far as I can work out this is a volunteer contributor (they have a link saying 'Become a reviewer'), so this is essentially WP:UGC. Would like to know what others think before !voting though. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)