Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric C. Novack


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric C. Novack

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is the alleged author of novel Killing Molly, which was deleted from wikipedia due to non-notability, see Articles_for_deletion/Killing_Molly, and I was the one who initiated its deletion process. If this person's work was worth being deleted here because it is not notable, then this person is probably not notable enough to be here. Wooyi 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Killing Molly does exist as a publication. It is currently a literary property under development with a Detroit film production company called Thought Collide. The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music. I understand the difficulty of verifying all of this independently from where you are executing your wikipedia duties. Not a hoax. Nowak is a keep, and the Killing Molly article will be reposted with easier aids for verification. Wmjuntunen 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As best as I can tell on Ghits his best (and almost only) claim to fame is the book that has failed a AfD. Jeepday 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. "The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music"? No! Please see the proposed guideline Notability (books) and the definitively established guidelines WP:BIO and WP:N. One reliable source is not notability. --N Shar 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The novel he wrote doesn't have an ISBN? Then it's not notable, and he's not notable for having written it as far as Wikipedia's concerned. Just H 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. "Self-styled as "The Bad Boy of Literature" may be one of the saddest things I've read on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V. Terence Ong 11:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-styled, self-published, self-promoting. NawlinWiki 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete very short and somewhat promotional article that does not meet WP:BIO.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To take these objections in turn is important. I read 1000 copies in a guideline. It's a good number; some limited editions of undoubtable notability are published in lower numbers. The guidelines you mention are proposed guidelines, as you say. Until these proposed guidelines go into effect, kindly adjudicate by the ones that are current. Any reason for the exclamation point on your no? I thought this forum is a learned, genteel discussion, with no need for yelling, 'No!' Much valuable literature is published without an ISBN or a Library of Congress call number. I wonder if Abby Hoffman's 'Steal this Book' had an ISBN number at first. Why should the Wikipedia be bound by the decision of the board that issues ISBN or Library of Congress's call numbers as a gauge of notability. The Killing Molly article failed a AfD probably because of improper writing of the article, so the book didn't fail an AfD. An article about the book failed an AfD. Saying that "Self-styled as The Bad Boy of Literature" is the saddest thing you've read on Wikipedia is an unusual statement. Many authors self-style themselves one or another monicker. Heck, one of the fine points of Cassius Clay is the way he self-styled himself, especially when preparing for a prize-fight. Any one who follows publishing knows that many authors self-publish and self-promote books. The latest example is Eragon, which came to the attention of Carl Hiassen in its self-published, self-promoted, un-ISBN-ed form.


 * Hey, I just checked Amazon. Killing Molly is there ! Did you really chase down any of those ghits?And Killing Molly has an ISBN Number > ISBN-10: 0975407406 and ISBN-13: 978-0975407400


 * One of my greatest complaints about this adjudicative process is the process starts to resemble a mob far too quickly. More, it seems I've rarely found bulls wasting time participating in these put-down sessions. The article for deletion process seems to attract a bearish kind of person, most irresponsible of all those who write the argot, 'nn'. If you can write full thoughts, do your comments belong in a deliberative process? Wmjuntunen 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * but in the AfDs the mobbing can also work the other way--once the consensus seems to shift, people come and agree with it, though they may not have contributed much to the actual discussion. --just compare the beginning of any long AfD with the end. It would, however, not be in the traditional spirit of WP to ask that people read the article before voting. The first step might be to automatically delete the comments/vote of anyone who used the word: per X. --its just as meaningless as nn (sort of a smile) DGG 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I rewrote the article, but my ego will not turm "self-styled bad boy" if someone reverts me. --Kevin Murray 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These deletions only delete the article but does not prevent you to write it again. So if there are more sources (like you said about Amazon) are added on, you can well reinstate the article. Wooyi 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - despite the comments of Wmjuntunen, wikipedia is not the place for things that are not currently notable but might be in the future; in particular, it is not the place to increase the appearance of notability to further that agenda.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Research & Rewrite The link at the article http://www.elitistpublications.com/km_reviews.htm cites five reviews of his book, but we need a better reference resourse than the author's website. Can someone verify any of these sources?  Maybe a rewrite of the text would make the article more appealing.  It's not improper grammer, but it just doesn't work for me.  This could be a keeper with some help.  I do agree with the author that too frequently the AfD looks like a mob, at first blush, but if you fix your article and recontact the mobsters you will find that each of them is a thoughtful and understanding person who will reconsider.  Good luck! --Kevin Murray 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I can see the improvement being done, if more sources are added on I would suggest to keep. Wooyi 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I would like to point out that I never self styled myself as the "Bad Boy of Literature" that was a given nickname from Living for Sundance Group and Thought Collide Films and members of Detroit Synergy. Also I appreciate the debate on if I should or should not be in Wikipedia. If the article stays I would appreciate the addition of thedetroiter.com and/or mrbellersneighborhood.com for reference purposes. I have written for both online magazines. Thank you Eric C. Novack
 * Delete References so far are unconvincing/insubstantial. Wikipedia is not a free publicity and advertising platform. We need significant, reliable evidence of encyclopedic notability. So far we have a local newspaper event promotion article of uncertain significance, a review from a website which Mr. Novack is himself involved with as the website's literature section editor, and a couple of small reviews in obscure publications of uncertain reliability and significance printed on the book's own website . And yes, the title "Bad Boy of Literature" needs referencing as well if its claimed that his fans call him that rather than it being self-styled. Bwithh 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete With Mr Novak now invloved in the editing it seems to be heading farther into vanity spam. Can't support this. --Kevin Murray 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? If I am involved why would it go more toward "vanity-spam". As far as I am concerned if the article is to be in Wikeipedia then it should be correct is all. And to be accurate the review of "Killing Molly" came months before my work at thedetroiter.com, the editor in chief called me and asked to work on the Lit section because maybe he felt I had a passion for the written word, who knows. And obscure lit reviews? HA please, they are probably the only reviews in Literature today that aren't bought and paid for. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. You guys make me laugh. And why wouldn't I print the reviews on my website. Hey maybe I should put blurbs on the back of the book too, damn author trying to give a perspective reader an idea what the book is about. What could I be thinking? (for you slow people this is called sarcasm.) Now as far as my validity of being in Wikipedia, let me ask is Marc Spitz or Jame Frey (what a piece of crap that was) in here or the author of "twelve" (one of the worst books ever written to get "big" time reviews that were complimentry. Again I don't mind that I might be up for deletion, but please when you make an argument for deletion, please make it valid and speak of something you know about. If any of you would like to trade literary blows please let me know.
 * The point is not that you are editing your own article, although that is discouraged but not forbidden; the point is the style of your writting. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 03:28, 3 February 2007 (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.