Talk:Lou Antonelli

Major Conflict of Interest Violation
According to the revision page, the primary editor for this article is the subject himself. The overwhelming number of edits made in the past year have been by him, and even before that he's been making a significant number of changes. 2601:151:8100:DC1:BCA4:DD7:3C9C:ACD2 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Further evidence that the primary editor is the subject can be found on this very Talk page. I'd suggest that the conversation satisfies the first step of WP:COI guidelines on handling CoI; as I am not a frequent editor I will refrain from posting on WP:COIN, but that seems like the next step. Thanlis (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just done a significant amount of cleanup, wikification, organization, and citation improvement. As long as a subject makes only factual contributions to an article and his conflict is declared then there's no cause for alarm. - Dravecky (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Campbell Award
Although an unregistered user keeps adding a note that Antonelli was a "runner up" for the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer in 2006 and 2007, he was not a nominee in either of those years.

In 2007, the nominees were Scott Lynch, Sarah Monette, Naomi Novik, Brandon Sanderson, and Lawrence M. Schoen, with Novik winning.

In 2006, the nominees were K. J. Bishop, Sarah Monette, Chris Roberson, John Scalzi, Steph Swainston, with Scalzi winning.

So, while Antonelli may have received nominations, he did not receive enough to make the ballot. If there were official runners up for the award, they would consist of the four people on the ballot who did not win. Shsilver 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official Hugo nominating report. Note the terminology use for the Campbell Report:

http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2007%20Nominations.pdf

The terminology used by the organization is Winner, Nominees, and Runners-Up.

Of course, this begs the whole question of people authoring their own entries. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think Wikipedia is bullshit and an enormous timewaster. You're not important enough for me to lie for, if that's an issue. I only put an entry on it as help for other people. If you want to delete my entry, go ahead,. In fact, I'd prefer it, given the claptrap citations now cluttering it.

Lou Antonelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louantonelli (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to find references and edited this article in keeping with WP:BLP. I think it should be more agreeable to the author this way as well, since I do not think the cleanup templates are needed anymore and thus removed them. ssepp(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks taking the time to do the edit. Insofar as Wikpedia wouldn't agree to delete the entry - which would have been the easiest way to take care of the problem, and was what I wanted - if you are all happy with the entry, fine with me.

I will never create an entry again. Like I said, the only reason I created my entry in the first place was as an aid if anyone was trying to look me up. 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Lou Antonelli

I'll probably regret this, but I added a few things to my entry to more accurately reflect my writing exploits. Of course, I put citations for everything - there are a LOT of biographical entries that are MUCH longer than mine that don't have as many citations. As far as the objectivty issue, I'm sure someone will slap me down if they have a problem with it. As I stated earlier, the only reason I vaguely care about the entry is as a reference for other people. Louantonelli 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Lou Antonelli

Notable or not?
I ran in to this article from an article for an element - but I've noticed that this guys writing is such crud that I must ask: is this 'author' notable? I don't think so. Please comment. Thrawn562 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--Mr. Antonelli has numerous publication credits listed, some of them impressive (such as Asimov’s Science Fiction and Jim Baen’s Universe). I have one short story published on Bewildering Stories, a free access, non-paying internet publication. If I were to write a Wikipedia article based upon that (or, for that matter, anything else concerning my life thus far), then I would expect the article to be removed expeditiously as a vanity entry. However, in Mr. Antonelli’s case, I think his accomplishments are sufficiently notable to merit this entry.

I write what I believe to be professional caliber reviews of mostly internet-published short stories on my personal website. I have already reviewed (on BwS) a personal memoir from BwS and the collective fiction and nonfiction works of one of their editors as presented on the zine. When time permits, perhaps I shall take a look at this writer’s free access work. Until then, of course, I must reserve judgment on the quality of his writing. However, apparently your crude characterization of Mr. Antonelli’s work is not shared by some illustrious, professional-rate fiction publications' editors.—Donald Schneider —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to be maintained by Mr Antonelli with little sourcing. Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage living people editing their own Wikipedia page. The page lacks sourcing. I feel that sourcing should be provided and Mr Antonelli should not edit his own page. Without his own editing, this page would be very small and not notable. Nicolai (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Wikipedia also strongly discourages non-living people from editing their own articles. - Dravecky (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any policy on that, and I really think we could leave the problem unaddressed until it becomes serious. ClueBot can handle the occasional addition of "BRAAAAAINS" to a page. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For someone who thinks Wikipedia is "timewasting" and "bullshit", he has been quite a keen editor over the last eight years.
 * It is probably worth keeping an eye on http://www.pretty-terrible.com/2015/08/10/pattern-matching-lou-antonelli-and-the-sad-puppies/ in case this gets properly cited, given that the Puppies are probably Antonelli's only remotely good claim to notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally elected officials (10 years on school board in Texas) and major party congressional candidates meet notability standards. He'd deserve at least a small stub if just for that. TMLutas (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Antonelli is currently a somewhat controversial figure, due to the "sad puppy" controversy, I would be more than a little skeptical of arguments judging him non-notable, since there's a risk that people advocating this may be trying to assert political judgment rather than assessing his intrinsic notability. In any case, the fact that he is controversial makes it more important that he have a Wikipedia article, and that the article is rigorously neutral, sticking to verifiable facts. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're just under the wrong section heading here - the original question about notability was from 2009. I don't think there's any question that the stink of the Puppies makes him notable now. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Have to support Geoffrey.landis on this one: he's definitely notable enough for an article, and it needs to be watched to make sure it remains neutral. Approaching it with the "stink of the Puppies" attitude clearly marks you as thoroughly biased (at least on this topic). If you wish to edit this(or any other article, for that matter), please leave your personal opinions at the door and stick to neutrally-worded, reliably verifiable information. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lou Antonelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906063048/http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2015/06/2015_hugo_award.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2015/06/2015_hugo_award.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

A few more sources
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After searching some publications that write about science fiction and fantasy, this is what I was able to find about Lou Antonelli:

http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Monitor/Magazines08a.html (mentioned in passing)

https://locusmag.com/2017/08/periodicals-late-august-2017/ (mentioned in passing)

https://www.tangentonline.com/print--other-reviewsmenu-263/collections-reviewsmenu-337/1401-fantastic-texas-by-lou-antonelli (this one is arguably the most notable source about him)

https://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2015/08/winners-2015-hugo-awards-puppies-lose-translations-win/ (mentioned in passing as a Hugo nominee)

http://www.fantasyliterature.com/reviews/magazine-monday-hugo-nominated-short-stories-2014/ (mentioned in passing as a Hugo nominee)

http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2015-hugo-awards/ (mentioned in passing as a Hugo nominee)

https://www.tor.com/2015/08/23/announcing-the-2015-hugo-award-winners/ (mentioned in passing as a Hugo nominee)

https://electricliterature.com/the-winners-of-the-2015-hugo-awards/ (mentioned in passing as a Hugo nominee)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/16094656/dragon-award-dragoncon-sci-fi-fantasy-books-sad-puppies (mentioned in passing as a Dragon nominee)

Overall, while there are some notable things about him (most notably his Hugo nomination) I don't know if this is enough for a Wikipedia page. Hopladamus (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)