Talk:Wandering Scribe

Untitled
Sadly another attempt has been made to advertise the wanderingscribe blog and to promote the book without any actual proof. How patient will Wikipedia be before they call a halt to this free advertising? The fans of Wanderingscribe even go so far as to remove Wikipedias Intention To Delete notice based on no other proof than they "believe the author". Surely this is how cults get started ......

From the amount of changes made to the page, it's obvious there are some that still believe this work of fiction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingscribe (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The comment above is irrelevant.(If your brain isn't able to show you why, sorry, I'm not going to do it either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.196.103 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The preceding comment by was blanked by  15:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Probably. But sadly those who don't are deleting elements of this entry as part of their propaganda war against Wandering Scribe - including on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren Thomas (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RE Billie Piper's autobiography: That was announced the same week as Abandoned appeared on Amazon. Despite being scheduled for publication this November, it had no page count at that time. Anya Peters' book, for May next year, did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themork (talk • contribs) 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help matters immensely if WS would just once give the name or location of the hospital, or the libraries, or the famous 'laneway': as she is no longer homeless, there can be no harm in so doing. As it stands, there are way too many inconsistancies to accept the blog at face value. I'm sure her publishers were delighted to learn that, finding herself struggling to actually write the book, she took herself off to Ireland for the best part of a month. That must have put a dent in the advance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.178.242 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It really is completely unremarkable that the publisher should quote a page count so far ahead of publication. The contract with the author will specify a word count and from this pagination and costs can be estimated. Indeed, estimating costs in advance is fundamental to the commercial publishing process. Whether or not publishers choose to use the page count in advance publicity is another matter - but the figure will certainly exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren Thomas (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Would any Wandering Scribe supporters like to buy a bridge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.147.17 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Email BT and ask about getting a BTInternet address. They will phone you at home and tell you that it's possible to get one but that you'll still have to pay £1.50 a month. Or do the company running the service know less that Wandering SCribe's ill-informed fanclub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.147.17 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They're hardly likely to tell you about ways round their charging structure are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafff (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And what are they pray tell? Let us know and we can all sign up for a BTinternet account of our own, or do you believe wanderingscribe@btinernet.com was in use years before Anya became a homeless would-be author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.147.17 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Perhaps you should research how BT internet accounts actually work before you go round making accusations. That will save you looking rather stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafff (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page was blanked by 13:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

There is much inaccurate speculation dressed up as fact in this entry which has been deleted as the contributors have failed to do even the most basic of research - for example into how BT internet accounts actually work and what the blogger actually said about being cold during her trip to Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafff (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I say delete it. All this free publicity to an obvious con artist which would have otherwise cost the publishing house thousands is an abuse of what Wikipedia stands for. Why should we give free publicity to someone who has used the internet for their own selfish gains?

As a famous Cyberman once said to me in a pub in the exact centre of England, "Delete!, Delete!, Delete!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderingscribe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the item about Wikipedia attempting to delete the article, as it does not belong in an encyclopediac article Wildthing61476 20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Have got the book (it was going cheap on amazon) and comparing the blog with the few pages devoted to her alleged homelessness, discrepancies emerge. example - in the blog she says the hospital had a fee car park; in the book she is told by a traffic warden that the (paying) hospital car park is not well patrolled. 'Nuff said. Bellagio10452 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several defamatory statements in the most recent versions which I have removed. Leafff (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability
I have marked this page for speedy deletion under Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wandering Scribe gained brief notoriety/ publicity in the UK for a few months in 2006 when a short BBC magazine story was written about her, and kept alive on the internet for a few months after that when some people debated the veracity of her blog and story. Although the blogger has published an autobiography, I don't think she merits an entire Wikipedia article since apart from that and the temporary media interest she has not really been in the public eye. Is this really worth keeping? Heloiseplisson (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an indication of importance, and one reliable source (the BBC), so I've removed the speedy template. You could nominate it at Articles for deletion where it can be discussed whether the page should be deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)