Talk:Hayford Peirce

Autobiographical article
Since I'm the author of this brief article (which I *will* expand), I ought to know whether I am a minor writer or not. User:Hayford Peirce (2004)
 * Hayford, have you read Auto-biography ? --Stormie 03:35, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Generally, Hayford, the procedure is that someone else finds you notable enough to write an article about you--while not a sufficient criterion for notability, it is a usually a necessary one. Otherwise, what's to stop people from polluting the main namespace with vanity pages about themselves?  (Not saying your article is, but still, the principle is extremely important.)  But then again, my sentiment is tempered by the fact that you appear to be the only professional sci-fi writer regularly contributing to the Wikipedia!  --Ardonik.talk 18:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether these and subsequent comments should be at Talk:Hayford Peirce or User talk:Hayford Peirce. This is indeed an awkward situation. --Ardonik.talk 18:11, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * If the comments are about this article, they definitely can be here. If they are general comments to Mr Peirce about editing, etc, they should go at his talk page. I have removed comments left here directed at Mr. Peirce personally.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
This article appears to be an ad for an author. There are concerns about lack of references, too much text which is unsourced, original research, conflict of interest with the contributor in the past contributing substantially to this article. Biggest problem: notability, Wikipedia needs reliable independent sources which talk specifically about this particular author. Please address these concerns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we are 7 years later and the article remains largely unsourced. Yes there are sources, but the vast majority of the text is unsourced. And it was mostly written by the author himself User:Hayford Peirce because where else did the personal unsourced information come from? --  Green  C  15:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues: ref improve, COI and original research
The article since it was born has original research, uncited facts, promotionalism and COI. The existing sourcing supports some of the material but most of it is not supported by any source and was written in a florid promotional tone. I have tagged inline because top-level tags are being removed by editors. If editors continue to delete warnings the next step is to delete uncited text. Suggest finding sources and adding material that can be sourced. -- Green  C  16:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The unsourced information is already making its way into newspaper articles. See which states "Most of his stories are light-hearted and satiric in tone, with elements of black humor and occasional surprising grimness, according to an online profile." This is a direct quote sourced from Wikipedia. --  Green  C  20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've now cleaned the article up. And since the subject (who had written most of this wiki entry) is now deceased, I took the liberty of removing the tags. Stophorus (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stophorus, oh awesome. The article is much better now. -- Green  C  04:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)