Talk:Sean A. Moore

Restoration of article
This article was deleted earlier today on the grounds that it plagarized its main source. Since Sean A. Moore merits an article, I have rewritten it in a way that does not do so, although it still relies greatly on that source for its information, and posted the resulting new version. The main bit of information that is actually new is the birthdate, taken from Rootsweb's version of the Social Security Death Index.

Incidentally, anyone have any better data on where Moore was born and died? The fact that his Social Security card was issued in Colorado indicates that he was a Colorado native as well as resident (though it does not constitute proof). I've found nothing to indicate precisely where he was killed, though presumably that occurred in Colorado as well. BPK (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Contestation of speedy deletion proposal
Looks like someone has a vendetta against the idea of an article on Moore. The first time around, it was deleted without even a warning for supposed plagarism (difficult to verify one way or the other, since the pre-deletion text of the article is no longer available to check). While not the article's original creator, I undertook to recreate it, taking care not to duplicate the source texts used, because its disappearance left a hole in the otherwise comprehensive group of articles on Conan the Barbarian authors.

Moore's involvement in the continuation of the work of Robert E. Howard entitles him to an article, in my view. Not only did he contribute a couple Conan novels, but his involvement in the Kull movie, both as a contributor to the screenplay and the author of the novelization, also appear to me to be significant. Both points are present in the article by implication if not explicit statement, and would be obvious to any student of Howard's work – though not, apparently, to the author of the speedy deletion proposal!

The importance of his writings in the grand scheme of things can certainly be debated. But the idea that they are so lacking in significance as to warrant speedy deletion of the article is laughable.

Keep the article. BPK (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)