Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael H. Payne


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael H. Payne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for User:78.105.28.140, whose rationale was "I do not believe this meets WP:AUTHOR & cannot find multiple secondary independent sources discussing this person or his books/reviews. Article has been maintained for 5 years by an static Newport Beach,Ca ipaddr, which is where the subject lives/works...possible wp:COI?" I have no opinion on the matter (neutral). Ansh666 08:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as the author is widely published in notable professional publications and has been the subject of significant critical attention from reliable third-party sources (,, etc.) and while conflict of interest concerns may be valid, they're not a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I too was able to find several online sources discussing his works, including, , , and . For what it's worth, his contributions to multi-author anthologies have also been mentioned in reviews of said anthologies, e.g. . Finally, his having won awards in the Writers of the Future contest further establishes his notability. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviewed his sole published novel. His SFWA award looks like to be minor and for bureaucratic service. He won the Writers of the Future contest, but that's awarded by the Church of Scientology – not exactly the same as a Hugo or Nebula. He seems most well-known for his self-published furry fanfic and webcomic, but who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The Writers of the Future 'award' was actually 3rd place. The sources noted by mwalimu59 do not appear to be wp:RS, as they are blogs or fanzine type websites. goodreads.com is a reader-submitted review site and does not confer notability. publishersweekly.com has a listing for just about every book published, the review is hardly indepth and should not confer any notability. sfsites looks like web only fanzine. as noted by NinjaRobotPirate the SFWA award is a bureaucrats backslap and fanzine/vanity published furry fanfic is his main claim to fame. By the authors own admission he is not a 'real pro' writer having only 1 book published 15yr ago and some short stories. The bibliography section of the article is well-larded with non-notable reviews in non-notable publications and if this article survives (it shouldn't if guidelines are applied correctly) the list will be pruned back to notable works only. 78.105.28.140 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: SF Site is a Locus Award-winning online magazine and a reliable third-party source for news about science fiction. Payne's short fiction has appeared in notable print publications including Asimov's Science Fiction, Tomorrow Speculative Fiction, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine, and Black Gate, plus notable online publications including Helix SF. He's no Margaret Mitchell or Harper Lee, but having only one novel in print is not a barrier to notability. Also, notability is not temporary nor is it a matter of opinion. - Dravecky (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There are three reliable book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and SF Site. Two of them are summary review sites not opinion reviews, and the third is an online-only genre magazine that doesn't suggest wider notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Green Cardamom.  There just hasn't been enough evidence of notability presented, and I'm unsatisfied with what I've been able to find myself.  Each claim of notability seems to be followed by a "but" that neutralizes it.  He skirts the edges of notability but does not quite make it.  If someone wanted to, they could try to find some furry-related page to merge relevant details, but I don't see any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 12:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dravecky and Ninja. I've never heard of him, but his one major work has been reviewed by reliable sources in the field. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2013 (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.