Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek (2nd nomination)


 * 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  21:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stanek
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is... well, it's a terrible article, and it has no promise of being good. Back in early 2006, it was created as part of a mass creation of a couple of dozen pages about the subject's rather odd novels (and many many many crosslinks); it may not have been a promotional campaign, but it certainly got greeted as one! All the pages were deleted, except this one; it was discussed separately and kept after a rather muddled debate.

It was generally accepted (see relevant AFD) that the subject's writing is not particularly notable, and about the only grounds it seemed that we had left for keeping an article on him were... well, that we were annoyed with him, and wanted to put that on the record with an article like this. The article then had even that removed, leaving it as just a bare listing of some work he's done and a mention of the books.

I understand the sentiment for keeping it the first time, I confess, but, well, it's not what we're here for. The claimed notability rests on his works, which we seem to have agreed don't come anywhere near the threshold at which we'd like to write an article; we're generally agreed that keeping articles on a person just to hang negative insinuations on them isn't really on; and once we've removed both those aspects, the article is really of no interest or use to anyone; it's a compromise which doesn't satisfy either party.

We can't reasonably just write about the allegations; we can't reasonably just write about the unsubstantiated promo copy; we have a piece of edit-warred rubbish if we have both; and we can't make an article without either. It's been stagnant for a year without any activity, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to have a magic solution to the issue. It seems to me that the best solution is just to quietly take the article out and dump it. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Away with it. I don't see notability or any real reason to keep it.  - Philippe  22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said in the discussion of the article - "You know, something just occurred to me... If we cannot accept/prove that "William R. Stanek" and "Robert Stanek" are the same person... then what the hell are the tech books by "William R. Stanek" doing under an entry for "Robert Stanek"? This entry was originally created by a Stankite as a puff piece promoting the FANTASY books and their author... Therefore, these tech books and their author have no place in this article... because we cannot show they are the same person without undertaking "original research"... ;)"  Time to put this thing out of its (and our...) misery. Synthfilker (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:11, 2 July 2008 (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.