Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Fassel


 * 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. Striking the !votes of blocked users/sockpuppets leaves only delete !votes and delete-oriented comments. Kurykh (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Preston Fassel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Based on cited references and a web search, subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Ringbang (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- Prolific writer for Rue Morgue, has done most of their blogging for the past few years and had cover stories published, in addition to the novel and screenplay. Guidelines explicitly state that number of Google results does not correlate to notability. Rue Morgue Magazin Authors: Preston Fassel
 * Per WP:AUTHOR-- "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Seems to describe subject well. Timmybiscool (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Timmybiscool. Has Fassel been the subject of a book, film, TV series, or other major work? What is the evidence that his work is significant or well-known? Remember that writing for a magazine isn't enough to establish notability; most magazine and newspaper writers do not quality. For the purposes of passing the GNG, what's needed here is direct, in-depth coverage of the author in reliable, indepedent sources—especially secondary sources; or, alternatively, evidence that his collective body of work has been demonstrably impactful. What we have is an interview from a blog with no editorial oversight; two local news reports that found the novel's publication newsworthy only because the author is from their town; and a short blurb about the novel on The Daily Grindhouse, which mostly copies-and-pastes from the book's description on Amazon.com. By themselves, these sources are not enough to establish notability. If you know of sources that do, it would be great if you could add them to the article. —Ringbang (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He's is considered notable enough within the horror community that he's been invited to be a lecturer/guest at Texas Frightmare Weekend, one of the largest horror conventions in the United States and the largest in the Southern United States. This information has since been added to the article. Non-notable individuals do not tend to be asked to speak alongside the likes of Dario Argento or Frank Henenlotter (also guests/speakers at the event).68.116.145.47 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw this page, too. Remember that subjects do not inherit notability by association. For obvious reasons, having a workshop at a convention is not very convincing evidence of notability, even if the convention organisers also booked celebrities for their event. —Ringbang (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not talking about inheriting anything. This is an event that spends considerable time and money to bring the best and most noteworthy the horror world has to offer. Not sure what you mean by "for obvious reasons" unless you have a particular bias against conventions, but TFW doesn't just pull people off the street or fan blogs to appear at their shows.Timmybiscool (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The inheritance in this case is by association with Rue Morgue, Texas Frightmare Weekend, or the people on its event roster. And that's really what's at the heart of what I meant by "obvious reasons": Not everyone who is on a fan convention's schedule is notable, just as not every novelist and magazine writer is notable. If we accept that "Texas Frightmare Weekend only hosts the best, they host Fassel, therefore Fassel is notable", then the event becomes a sort of notability-generating machine. There are elite titles, offices, honours, etc. that impart notability, but this isn't one of them. Anyway, the best case you can make for the article is by applying the highest quality references you can find. If he's notable, then you should be able to find reliable sources, independent of Fassel, that talk about him directly and in depth. —Ringbang (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep As notable to Rue Morgue as Michael Gingold is to Fangoria68.116.145.47 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus two of the cited sources are newspaper articles, so not sure how swift your search parameters are if they don't turn up...68.116.145.47 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are, however, local coverage stories about "a local author," his book does not appear to have received coverage outside the local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can someone demonstrate that Rue Morgue (magazine) is notable?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In print for 20 years, produced a movie, sponsor multiple conventions, print books, largest horror publication in Canada... How are they NOT notable?Timmybiscool (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we take a step back? You've worked on the article, and you care about it. I've been there; we're all on the same side. This question is not an attack. E.M.Gregory is asking because Rue Morgue (magazine), like the Preston Fassel article, is not well-supported by references. —Ringbang (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. To argue that Fassel is notable because he writes for Rue Morgue, it is necessary to show editors unfamiliar with this magazine that Rue Morgue. is notable.  Tmproving it according to  WP:GACR standards is the best way to do this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm supposing that E.M. Gregory isn't a horror fan, which I respect, but saying that a magazine with Rue Morgue's history and reach "may not be notable" is somewhat akin to asking whether "Ring Magazine" is notable coming from an editor who isn't a boxing fan or doesn't have a lot of knowledge of that particular sport. Rue Morgue's article already talks about the magazine's history, film productions, festival sponsorship, etc. It sort of feels like I'm being asked to improve another article that to me doesn't seem like it needs improving to standards I'm not even certain of to just to try and protect this one from individuals without an interest in the area.Timmybiscool (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do anything with Rue Morgue (magazine); editing and sourcing that article doesn't affect this AfD, and it's just a complicating distraction. Getting back to Fassel: For this AfD, the most important guideline to read and internalise is WP:GNG. We just don't have significant coverage of the subject. —Ringbang (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I cannot see any basis on which he passes WP:JOURNALIST.  Rue Morgue is a niche publication, but the "keep" arguments seem to be based on the assertion that a "prolific writer" for a magazine, any magazine, is necessarily notable.  This is NOT THE CASE.  We do not have articles for every "prolific writer" working even for major publications like The Guardian or Sports Illustrated.  Articles on journalists need to establish notability, which is usually done by showing that WP:RS secondary source publications have published assessments of their work, and articles about stuff like where their first job was, and when they were hired by Fangoria or Rue Morgue.  There is no use repeating that Rue Morgue is well-known.  What we need to see in order to establish notability is that his articles are republished in books like Best Magazine ARticles, 2016, discussed in scholarly journal article or books about horror fiction, and taht there are articles in WP:RS publications that offer substantive discussion of him and/or his work.  User:Timmybiscool, we're not picking on you in particular, or on this genre; this is just the way Wikipedia works.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix, Rondo nominaton and speaking engagement at a notable event indicate notability but article needs workRudyLucius (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that User:RudyLucius had not edited since May 2006 until this moment, when he rejoined us to rapidly comment on 9 AFD discussions, then iVote to keep this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the Rondo Award is not bluelinked, but, rather, was written into the lede to look like a bluelinked Award, when it is actually mentioned in the article on Rondo Hatton, where it is not supported by any secondary sources. I searched.  It does not google well, and the gNews hits  are not impressive.  It looks look like it is a real, but minor, honor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the contributions that E.M.Gregory has made to Wikipedia, it seems that he's letting his lack of familiarity with the subject matter cloud his judgment. While the Rue Morgue and Rondo Hatton articles admittedly need work, there's a difference between needs improvement and "not notable." Over the course of this AFD Debate he's called the largest horror publication in the world "niche" and questioned its' notability and called the Rondo Hatton Award, which is one of the highest awards a non-fiction horror writer can receive, "minor." (A look at the link he provided to Google News links even contains an Entertainment Weekly article that acknowledges the Rondo as the Oscars of the horror world. See here). I respect his reservations, but at the same time it would appear as though his own non-interest in the subject area is clouding hisperception of its' notability.Timmybiscool (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I know this is going to sound strange but I'm a bit suspicious of the previous user and not sure his vote should be trusted. It's his very first post on Wiki ever and he's made no other edits. I know that another Wiki user has very verbally voiced his displeasure with some additions I've made to another article here on Wikipedia, and due to my reporting him he was temporarily banned from editing a certain page. I wouldn't put it past this individual to attempt to discredit me here by engaging in suspicious behavior to make it look as though I'm sockpuppeting. If the guy is legit and for whatever reason wanted to make this his first post, cool, whatever, but, I don't want this to come back on me and the article because of someone else's shady behavior.Timmybiscool (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With a few days having passed and it being his only contribution, I'm calling shenanigans on Surrogale. I know this is my article, but I want it to succeed on its' own merits, and I'm very much thinking this is an attempt by a user upset with my edits to another article attempting to undermine the credibility of this one.Timmybiscool (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my article in that I created it-- not that I am the subject, as the same above user has alleged.Timmybiscool (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RudyLucius is a ✅ sock of Timmybiscool. See Sockpuppet investigations/Timmybiscool.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2017 (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.