Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary W. Walters


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mary W. Walters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG criteria. Won a local writing award (Writers Guild of Alberta), has a blog, belongs to a few organizations, that's about it. Lots of references, but zero non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, mostly just blogs and organizations. Has the appearance of paid editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Unfortunately overly promotional article with too much trivia and a lot of un-referenced claims. I don't have access to Canadian Who's Who so I cna't see what claims that makes. Few library copies. Some books admittedly self-published, and I can't find River Books of Edmonton - possibly out of business. NeWest Press does exist - very small press in Edmonton. I checked most of the refs, removed some, cited others as failing validation. If this stays, unsourced statements should be removed. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place for me to add this note, but I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry and I am very sad that you are considering deleting it...note - comments relocated to discussion page)


 * Delete - In response to the person this article is about, who will be reading my edit... nothing personal, and you seem like a nice person. Wikipedia has certain notability criteria, and in this case it is WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO.  I have searched Google and not found enough reliable sources to take this article (not you) past the threshold of notability (yet).  Again, nothing personal (unless you are just another sock of User:Alwayssmileguys).  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock. I will live with this deletion if I must (of course), and will continue striving to win the Booker. I would just appreciate someone explaining to me why the bar is not nearly as high for soooo many other writers (see ones I cited for examples) as it seems to be for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marywwriter (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I looked at the articles of the other writers you mention; all have either won a notable award, and or have evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (definition of reliable sources here). You also had the misfortune of choosing an inept article creator on Fivrr. I hope you haven't already left a positive review for him. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge a huge mistake in trying Fivrrr. I should have known better. It was a moment of desperation that came from my great fear of attempting to contact Wikipedia directly for guidance. I am happy to provide non-trivial coverage of the calibre of the other writers I have mentioned, but most of them are not online but are in print format only (e.g. reviews of my books from newspapers and magazines). Here is an example: https://maryww.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dv001.jpg I can scan others from reviews of earlier books, but if I post them online myself it still looks pretty hokey -- even though they are legitimate reviews. They're probably on microfiche somewhere because they are not recent. "Legitimate reviewers" do not review self-published books as a rule... yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marywwriter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If I am banished now, will I be banished forever? (I will now attempt to sign this properly.) --Marywwriter (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's another non-trivial mention; http://www.geist.com/topics/walters-mary-w/ And there's this: http://www.writersunion.ca/pd-workshops And I can scan several that I have here in print format. The Canadian Who's Who is too expensive to purchase and they no longer give you access to out-dated versions online but I assure you I am in there and have been since about 1990. I can do a scan of the entry to that too if you want. One of the sources cited in Candas Jane Dorsey's bio (George Melnyk's literary history of Alberta) is one in which I am cited too, and have listed in the references. The winners of the Alberta Achievement Award are not anywhere online (a political decision, I am sure!) I have also been published at least a dozen times in "non-trivial" literary magazines including The Malahat Review and Chatelaine. Those are all in the bio. Which admittedly probably needs cutting.

I'll stop now and leave it in your hands. Marywwriter (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been writing for forty years, and publishing steadily. To have learned here in this forum that my achievements are valueless compared to those of hundreds of other writers in the world, many of whom are at approximately the same stage of their careers as I am and have the same credentials, is devastating to me. As I am well regarded by many of my peers and by readers, I cannot begin to explain how humiliating this experience is for me. I am ashamed to the roots of my soul when I see the banner across my Wikipedia page that says “This article is being considered for deletion.” You may argue that I brought this on myself. It was not my intent to blow my achievements out of proportion, but only to have them recorded in a place that nearly everyone goes to for information. I had no idea how else to get the information up here. Clearly it was a mistake. Now I am requesting that you just take down the article as quickly as possible and release me from the pain of this diminishment of my public persona and my personal self-esteem. Please put me out of my misery as quickly as you can. Thank you. Marywwriter (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mary, please take a moment to read other stuff exists. Also, you were the one who started this.  You added a draft auto-biography to your sandbox here over a month ago.  Then when that didn't work, you paid someone to write your article.  Now it's written, and there is a discussion about whether it meets wikipedia's notability threshold.  Am I missing something?  Would it help to know that the article has only been viewed 26 times in the past five days? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Magnolia677, please take a moment to read XfD culture: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I also wonder if you saw the following text in Other stuff exists: ? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Magnolia, thanks. I have now read the "other stuff exists" item. I accept that it is valid.

When I used the sandbox, I was not expecting that it might "work." I did not know that it could "work." In fact, I hoped and I assumed no one would notice it. What I was doing with it was drafting an item that I then intended to submit for consideration by Wikipedia editors. I did all the formatting, put in all the links, etc. I tested it over and over again. But when it was ready for me to ask someone on the site for input, I lost my nerve. Yet again I had read and re-read all kinds of articles on the site about why you can't publish/write/propose your own bio. I figured that if I asked a Wikipedia editor to look at what I had put in the sandbox, I would be banned for life just for asking.

I know that many writers who are on this site (there is probably an "other stuff exists" type piece to ban attempts to make this kind of point as well, but I will continue anyway) have been posted here by people on the staffs of their publishing companies or with the help of other PR contacts they have through their agents and publishers. I also know that to wait around for someone (one of my avid fans, perhaps) to get an idea that they should write a Wikipedia piece about me, and then be willing and able to take on all the intricacies that writing such a thing requires, would take longer than I have life left in me. Sometimes you have to do what you can with what you have, and in this situation, all I had was me.

I honestly believed that I had the same (or equivalent) credentials as/to many other writers on the site, and that I therefore would be welcome here if anyone knew that I existed, and that it was only due to the fact that I had no PR staff to post an entry that was preventing me from taking my little seat in the little corner that is reserved for mid-list writers in this massive machine. One of my biggest problems is that five years ago I decided to investigate the possibilities of self-publishing rather than persisting to try to find a publisher for my third novel. As I have told countless other writers in PD workshops, there are many downsides to self-publishing in this era. The damage it does to your credibility (even if you have already been traditionally published) is one. Having no PR machine is another. I am quite sure that if the identical bio to the one I have written had been posted about me by someone at a major publishing house, we would not be having this conversation. I am also sure that you are going to run into other instances where (borderline?) qualified biographees are in no position ever to get onto Wikipedia because they have chosen to self-publish. The world is changing, but it always changes slowly.

Anyway, when someone to whom I was explaining all my Wikipedia dithering suggested Fiverr, I thought this could be my solution: I could just HIRE a PR staff! And, to take the blame off the shoulders of the guy who you think has so badly written the piece about me -- he didn't. I copied it directly from my sandbox to a word document. He copied it, fucked up the footnoting I had done, and otherwise posted it word for word. All weaknesses in the piece are mine.

So no, you didn't miss a thing. All of the errors and oversights are mine. It was all done innocently enough, however, and with no malice or malingering or prevarication intended. As I said this morning, i did not realize until it was marked for deletion that i was not worthy. I am ashamed that I am not worthy. Very ashamed. But it came as a surprise. However, since there seems to be no way to make this mistake go away, I will just learn to suck it up and get back to work on my next short story. Perhaps if I find a really non-trivial place that wants to publish it (or the one after it, or the one after that), we will be able to talk again. Marywwriter (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In reference to my work in the Sandbox, please note the final revision I composed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marywwriter/sandbox&direction=prev&oldid=693902133 This is the version I sent to the guy at Fiverr (the first one I found there who listed Wikipedia postings as a service he offered). You will note that he took out almost all of the links and turned them into References. I told him that I did not intend the ones he'd changed to be references. They were just links to background information on some event or person I had cited but they had no connection to me personally. He insisted, telling me that this was the format Wikipedia wanted now. So I let it go. But there should really be only EIGHT references -- these are ones that mention me specifically.

You will also note that I never submitted it for feedback for review by Wikipedia editors, which is why your claim that the sandbox didn't "work" doesn't make sense to me.

Marywwriter (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In 2007 I decided to try help a man whom I have never met write an article about himself at Wikipedia. It was my first experience “editing" Wikipedia. If you stick around long enough to know what User and User-talk pages are, and how to read edit-histories, I invite you  to read what followed, but  to  make a long story short, from that day on I have been considered a “spammer” (and other derogatory terms) here.


 * On the positive side, if you stick around even longer, you may discover that the good  outweighs  the bad. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@ottawahitech Thank you. On Sunday I am leaving for a holiday in a place where they have no reliable internet, which is a relief. By the time I return, I will probably have recovered from this, no matter how it turns out. I think my worst nightmare is that I will remain forever on Wikipedia with a permanent notice that I am being evaluated for deletion. Like the garbage at the side of the street that never gets picked up but just smells increasingly bad as time goes on.Marywwriter (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

question: Is anyone here aware of the existence of Draft:Mary W. Walters? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  14:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  14:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will research this further and ask the other WP users to do the same so we can make a fair comment to keep or delete. Lit1979 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As at least one editor has pointed out elsewhere, Lit1979 seems to be making valid contributions at Afd, stating that he or she has been following Wikipedia for some time. The editor doesn't seem to be default-!voting one way or another. Let's WP:AGF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and draft and userfy until a better sourced and overall solid article is available. SwisterTwister   talk  06:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject needs to understand that this is not a comment on the quality of her work as a writer — Wikipedia does not have any institutional opinion one way or the other about such matters. We do not keep or delete an article about a writer on the basis of whether any individual editor likes or dislikes their writing — we keep or delete an article about a writer on the basis of whether that article passes or fails our content standards. Don't take this as a personal affront to your worth as a writer or a person, because the purpose of this is actually to protect you from the unintended consequences of having a Wikipedia article — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that nobody will ever edit the article in an attempt to publish defamatory content that attacks you for something. So we insist on reliable source coverage by which the content in an article can be properly verified, because otherwise if somebody vandalized the article in the future we would have no way to properly sort out what was true and what wasn't. There's plenty here that would constitute enough notability if it were properly sourced, but no article on Wikipedia ever gets to have its sourcing rest primarily on WordPress and Blogspot blogs and primary sourced public relations profiles — it's media coverage or bust, always and forever, and no person, no matter how deserving they might be in principle, ever, ever, ever gets an exemption from that for any reason. We don't make personal judgement calls about whether one writer deserves an article more or less than another one does; we make the determination based solely on the quality of the sourcing that is or isn't available to properly support an article. The most talentless hack in literary history will get an article if the reliable source coverage is there, and the most brilliantly innovative new writer on Wattpad won't get an article if media aren't taking notice of their brilliance yet — it's not about the quality of their work (which is almost always a subjective opinion anyway), it's about verifiability in reliable sources. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when it can be sourced ''properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (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.