Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Mellick III


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC) no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlton Mellick III

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Vanity page for non-notable minor-press author. Fails WP:AUTHOR on all four criteria (the only critical attention paid has been reviews or profiles by authors and writers also affiliated with his press). One of a series of articles created and maintained by selfsame group; style of article is vanity/advertising/promotional. Have tried to edit this article to reach an encyclopedic standard, but there is simply not enough reliably sourced material (i.e., not the author's blog or other self-published/conflict-of-interest sources to justify its inclusion. Chromancer (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's borderline. He seems to be fairly well established, with a quite a solid fan base. I had a search and sources will be difficult, but I think he is notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but a solid fan base (which I'd dispute; the press involved has print runs that don't even go into the tens of thousands, much less thousands) doesn't make him pass any of the WP:Author criteria, which is the standard for notability. The article has been extant for years without sources. I'd ask you to take a look at the criteria for authors on the wiki again and reconsider... articles of this kind lend undue weight to critically insignificant persons. Chromancer (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I too agree that it's borderline, but I lean on the delete side. In general, the entire genre is too new to have taken a hold (the term itself is only 5 years old), even Bizarro fiction, the article for the entire genre of writing, has notability issues. Any author affiliated with this genre would have to rise above the scene itself to assert notability, and not simply be covered by the scene itself. I think it's telling that Bizarro-related articles have been created and developed mostly by self-proclaimed promoters of the scene. --  At am a  頭 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - he may seem to be notable, but that needs to be backed up with reliable sourcing which it lacking. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. The scant referencing provided show he exists, but do not establish notability per WP:GNG. With a bibliography that long, one would expect WP:RS to be out there if he was truly notable, but this not appear to be the case, unfortunately. -- Kinu t /c  00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He recently got a write-up on the Guardian's website. I think he sells pretty decent. Riotmelody (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source? The only article I am able to find on the Guardian website that mentions him is this one, and that seems more like a brief mention in a blog-style post that's more about the genre rather than the author himself. -- Kinu t /c  07:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you guys kidding? The author of Satan Burger? That book is a cult classic that influenced an entire movement. Combined, his books sell in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. He has one of the most insanely dedicated fan bases around. But he is a cult author, not a mainstream author. Still, I can see a lot more people visiting his wiki page than most of the authors published through NY publishing houses, because he is one of a kind, has a large following, and is regularly talked about. His latest book was in the top 500 bestsellers on amazon.com, and Satan Burger has been the #1 bestseller in the horror category. I agree this page does need a lot of work, though. I'm nearly positive he meets all 4 criteria, but it would take some time to find the proof. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering your account is at the very least a role account for a street team that focuses on promoting this author's work, I would suggest that you recuse yourself from this AfD discussion, as is suggested per Conflict of interest. I have been searching for information on this author that would indicate he meets WP:AUTHOR criteria for some time; until he receives more serious critical attention in independent sources, he's just not there. — Chromancer  talk/cont 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because of the conflict of interest, I haven't edited any page related to this author since March 2008. However, after reading the COI guidelines, I really don't think there actually is a conflict of interest with me. I am just a fan. I do not get any monetary gain from it. I am not campaigning. I have never worked on his pages for the sake of promoting his work. I just want to get the factual information out there for those looking for it. Is there anything wrong with that? Maybe I have run a Carlton Mellick III fan club in the past, but is that really a problem? In my opinion, all what that means is that I am familiar enough with the subject to know how to find information/references on this author in ways that some random wiki editor doing a simple google search wouldn't be able to do. If I were actually allowed to update this page I can guarantee you I would get the proper references that are needed for this article, because I would know how to find them. If given time and a go ahead, I could fix this article up to an acceptable level. But if there is without a doubt a COI with me then I will bow out of all of this. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, an interest in promoting an article's subject constitutes a conflict of interest. — Chromancer  talk/cont 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Updating the wiki with the intent of promotion is a COI, but that isn't my goal. I just want the information to be available and want the article to meet the standards of this site. I have promoted his work elsewhere, yes, as all fans do. If fans of the topic are not allowed to update wiki pages then I would agree, but the COI page doesn't state that explicitly.Avantpunkarmy (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to add that after exhausting other resources, nine years after his most 'significant' work, Satan Burger, was published, Google News still records zero hits. Google Scholar records one hit, which is a glancing mention in a St. Martin's Griffin 'Year's Best' promotional publication. No hits on JSTOR, either. I submit that if nearly ten years can go by without the author making any sort of impact in the critical or literary sphere then notability cannot be established. — Chromancer  talk/d cont 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If the information isn't available on Google Scholar then it is invalid? This author has been mentioned in Locus, the biggest/oldest nonfiction magazine of the Science Fiction genre. He's been written up in the Oregonian, which is the biggest/oldest newspaper in Oregon. Also Boing Boing (second biggest blog in the world), The Guardian (a major UK newspaper), Vice Magazine (over a million copies circulation). There have been many articles written up about this guy, all over the place. I know about them because I'm a fan who pays attention to this stuff. I could fix this article up if it wasn't for the COI, which I don't think actually applies to me (unless it applies to all fans).Avantpunkarmy (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Post a list of source references on the article's talk page and we can see if they meet WP:RS. WP:COI strongly cautions against anyone who is a proponent of a particular subject from editing the article. Given that you seem to have a very strong opinion about him and his notability, it seems wise to respect this. — Chromancer  talk/cont 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I will post a list of sources on the talk page as soon as I can. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - having a conflict of interest does not preclude one from editting an article although it It certainly does not preclude one from presenting sources. But the sources must be specific, and not just stating I remember reading such and such and saw him mentioned. Other editors must be able to review those sources too. -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point; I didn't mean to give him the impression he was not allowed to edit the article, only that editing it on the basis of that COI was discouraged. — Chromancer  talk/cont 19:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to say you did give me the impression that I wasn't allowed to edit it. The COI warning header on the page also seems rather intimidating. 'Discouraged' is another thing. I believe I should be able to edit entries as long as I can meet wiki's standards, use the right references, and do not make the entry promotional. Avantpunkarmy (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was under the impression from your first post about COI that someone had already warned you about editing it, and thought you needed no further clarification? Regardless, as long as your sources aren't the same blogs, zines, and self-published stuff that's been plaguing this article, I can see no objection to your editing it, especially if you can provide WP:RS that prove independent secondary coverage. If you can provide this, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. — Chromancer  talk/cont 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep Being anthologized in Best SF & Horror seems to meet the critical recognition guidelines. Isn't that a major honor? VASterling (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no mention of it in the article, nor in any of the mentions I found, unless I've missed something. Can you provide a WP:RS? — Chromancer  talk/cont 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.