Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (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. -- Lear's Fool 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Neil Falcone
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is not quite the same as was deleted per previous AFD as it contains more recent information he has now been published offline. So rather than overturn the previous AFD or delete as substantially identical, I am opening a fresh AFD to see if consensus has shifted.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. He has not been published offline yet. His story will allegedly be published in an anthology in June 2011 by MayDecember Publications. That in itself does not make him notable as an author at all. This is basically an unreferenced (and seemingly unreferenceable) biography of a living person, apart from the fact that he has published various short stories on e-zines. I have removed per WP:BLP biographical information including where he lives and the name of his child. No reference whatsoever was provided for those personal details and until one from a reliable source can be found, the material should not be re-added. I have fact tagged the rest. I also changed the text to reflect what the reference actually said concerning his story "Six". It generated seventy on-line votes not "reviews" as had been stated in the article (link now broken). (This story also generated 5 two sentence comments by other website users.) All sources are merely links to his own online published stories and a couple of very brief mentions in blogs and other self-published websites. Comprehensively fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, just as it did the first time. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. - As is detailed below by talk below, the Falcone article fits within the general community acceptance standards previously articulated in this area of coverage. Having said that, all should applaud [User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] and her excellent contributions to the article. Her position on the article here and below is the only really detailed enuciation of the standard, followed by an application of facts. The entire detractors' argument effectively collapses into her (or his) argument. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. My mistake. Forgot to sign in. This URL above is me having my morning Starbucks's.Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. One more note. After doing the cite-checking for this author, I contacted some of the magazines and have further documentation to track down. Allegedly, he has been accepted for anthology publishing three more times. “Home to Meet Mother” will be appearing in ‘Dark Secrets’ some time this year.  “White” and “Slay Bells” have been accepted into a winter-themed horror anthology entitled ‘Winter Chills,’ again this year.   “Meat” is moving to print, in ‘Dark Gothic Resurrected Magazine.’  I will follow up on these; though I am not a fiction reader, this is the great thing about being a part of Wikipedia.  You learn so much (such interesting title!).  Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt - It is pledge season at Cornell University, and I fear that the Cornell chapter of Phi Kappa Psi has made spamming Wikipedia with articles about their recent graduates one of their pledge projects. While I think that learning about alumni is an admirable undertaking for college freshmen, I suggest that they temper their urge to share their research on Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no CoI in this proceeding; did got to college in the city Falcone grew up in, but his ties to Syracuse University seem to be limited. Also, I am not a co-worker of another editor in this AfD, nor am I a frat guy.  I did post the common network tag, just in case.  But as we all know now that we are moving to behavioral analysis, the CU process is being hampered by new technologies.  The best defense against conflicts are well-argued, documented positions the Administrator can follow and verify.  Am troubled that Racepacket is a former Trustee of Cornell and has not stated so in this proceeding, but has in the past.  I can see why a University media office may not want a horror writer put forward as an examplar of the Old School, and how someone with ties to that school could influence debate.   But again, if the arguments are strong and well documented, an Administrator can plod through.  There is no evidence Racepacket is speaking for the University. Nor is there evidence that Phi Kappa Psi, or the Irving is representated.  Lots of folks from last fall are not here. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Unless there is some COI, the discussion should be standards based. The new material indicates notability, and the sources are independent of materials posted by the author.  There appear to be some researching requirements, but we've all dealt with those issues in the past.  What concerns me is the vision of a small elite within Wikidom is becoming he equivalent fo the French Salon of the 18th century, over-defining what is culturally acceptable to the exclusion of diversity.  That is not Wiki; at least from this Syracuse grad's view.Coldplay3332 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The COI is without question, but that has no bearing on notability, which is the sole criteria being considered here. Can you please state which of the notability criteria this article currently satisfies—not what you think they ought to be, but the existing ones? Can you please supply evidence that the article's subject, Ryan Neil Falcone, has himself been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, not simply that he got his short-stories published in various e-zines and allegedly will be published in the future in an anthology? Simply being published does not make the author notable. Voceditenore (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * State the Conflict of Interest Reviewed last falls discussion, and checked the participants against this discussion (including the Speedy Delete discussion), and I am not seeing the CoI. I think that should be discussed first: where is the CoI that is "without question"? Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As stated above, COI has no bearing on AFD policy. Its discussion here would therefore be both irelevant and inappropriate. Any COI concerns should be addressed at Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone. The previous AFD discussion mentioned COI because of the possibility of sock/meat puppetry being used in an effort to vote stack. There is currently no reason to suspect that puppetry is influencing this discussion, and therefore no reason to bring up COI at this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources may perhaps be independent of the subject of the article, but are they "reliable secondary sources" that demonstrate notability? Would these editors be fighting to include the subject of the article if he was not a Phi Kappa Psi recent graduate? Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Again, lots of conjecture here. Behavorial analysis can be an avenue for spreading rumors.  We need to be careful. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per voceditenore. The subject clearly fails the notability guidelines at WP:Author and more generally at WP:N. To Coldplay3332, I suggest you read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, What Wikipedia is not, Notability, and Verifiability as you seem to be completely ignorant about the purpose behind wikipedia and what it is trying to accomplish. 4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Conclusory argument stating some standards, but not applying them. Effectively, an echo of Voceditenore's argument. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Voceditenore. The article still fails WP:AUTHOR, as noted.  Enigma msg  03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again, a conclusory argument with some standards, no application of facts and an effective echo of Vocediternore. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, refs do not establish notability, it's not even close. Hairhorn (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. Conclusory argument, no standards and no echo. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing this writer's achievements passing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. I would need to be seeing discussion of the writer's work in reliable sources, independent reviews, nominations for recognised awards, and while this writer may have a promising career ahead I don't think he notable yet to the degree wikipedia accepts. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This editor over applies the standard. All the on-line sources are reliable and independent; awards are certainly good evidence, but not required. The question this editor poses is really not about Falcone, but about Wikipedia. Has it become so conservative that it is culturally limited to traditional media, such as print. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The Falcone article meets the Wikipedia standard for notability and sufficient reliability to ensure independence.  Unlike a blog, competitive publication requires peer review.  “Six” in Lighting Flash Magazine appears in a eZine compensating for the use of author’s works, and targets authorship of speculative fiction from the genres of science fiction, fantasy, and horror; exciting stories showing why writing is vital and compelling, and readers remember brilliant fiction years after they read it.  Falcone’s work in Macabre Cadaver was selected for publication and received a reader rating of 5, out of 5 (“Awesome”). Subject’s work in Absent Willow Review met the criteria of that magazine, which is designed to highlight new talent.  The Review is the fastest growing online magazine of its type and publishes great works of speculative fiction.  So while the actual works are primary sources, the competitive rating of the article and the magazine editors’ decision to publish them are secondary sources of note in this eZine genre. With respect to reliability, Macabre Cadaver and the Review serve as aggregators of talent, vehicles of competitive notability; the subject of the article is more than a happenstance author in this genre; and the publisher stands aloof from the author, surveying the genre field. As for notability, significance is achieved in that original research is not required.  The work is reliable for the reasons stated above.  The two sources are secondary, in they themselves are not the work of the artist, but rather the aggregator of promising talent.  Independence is achieved by the competitive process; the editors are deciding what is published, and not an editorial blogger. Beyond Macabre Cadaver and the Review, there are nine or fifteen other sources (depending on which ones you accept), secondary or otherwise, serving as a vehicle for the publishing of the subject’s primary works of art.  Black Petals is run by book reviewers, and screens competitively.  Micro-horror published a subgenre serving as the flash fiction or short-short venue. The general goal of a microfiction is to tell a story, set a mood or depict a scene in as few words as possible.  Selection is competitive.  Dark Fiction Spotlight specifically features the horror genres secret and established talent, it compensates, and the works are published based on reader review and assessement.  The Foliate Oak Literary Journal is a student-run publication, but it publishes both student and non-student work. The decisions of each of these editors and their readers, in the aggregate, provides sufficient reliable sourcing establishing notability of this Wikipedia article.  The article is within the WP:Author standard. For these reasons, ‘Keep.’  Lebowski 666 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. Since your argument above is largely copied (in places verbatim) from that written by Cmagha (the article's original creator) in the previous AfD, my response will be in a similar vein. All this wall of text says is that you think Falcone passes the notability criteria because he has verifiably had x number of stories published, and that links to these stories satisfy the criteria for significant coverage of him by secondary sources. Being published by "aggregators of promising talent" may be an achievement of sorts, but is no evidence of notability whatsoever. No awards, no reviews, no articles about the author or his work which are key to establishing the notability of an author. Macabrecadaver.com publishes lengthy articles, interviews, and reviews, but has nothing actually about Falcone or his work . Absentwillowreview.com also has interviews and "Editor's Choice" Awards, but Falcone appears in neither. Lightning Flash Magazine gives a "best fiction prize" to one story in each issue. Observe the results for the issue in which Falcone's story appears. Yes, Lightning Flash does compensate some authors, but only those whose stories win the "best fiction prize" and Falcone's did not. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. The fact that Falcone's work will be availabe on Amazon.com and available for the Kindle makes Mr. Falcone significant. Lebowski 666 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Amazon stock on demand books and downloads of almost anything. In a couple of AfDs concerning books or authors, I have even commented that they weren't listed on Amazon as being something unusual. To be published in hardback by an established publisher (as opposed to our old friend lulu and others similar) is possibly more of a claim than Amazon listing (they sell lulu published stuff - if anyone wants it), but to have one short in an anthology published by a small publisher seemingly only a couple of years in the business is not much of an indication of notability. As I say below - come back when there's a real claim. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment. Again, missing the point. The on-line sources publishing Mr. Falcone's work are independent and reliable in and of their own. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.  Cind. amuse  05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - my  research  turn up  the same results as Voceditenore and Cindamuse. Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The significant standard is not as strict as is implied, above. This is a debate about quality of citation, and that is tricky.  The detractors are looking for culture endorsements of a specific nature not required for notability. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I see non-independent sources, unreliable sources, web pages by (not about) Falcone, etc etc, but no sign of anything that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am troubled that someone 'voting' was also the Administrator who ruled to not let the author join this discussion. Not sure how our CoI rules apply to these situations.  Administrators making signficant decisions on the process ought not to opine on the merits, at least from my perspective. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the May December deal doesn't give notability. First, it's not out yet, and to judge by their pay rates for novellas (which wouldn't fill the tank on my car), not exactly going to make him rich from one story in an anthology. Don't get me wrong - I wish him success in a difficult field. This sort of stuff is good practice and good to show in a portfolio when you move on to the next level. I hope to see an article on Falcone which tells of his successful release by a more established publisher - but that time is not yet. Use all methods of publicising your endeavours - but not Wikipedia. We will wait to record them. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again, this is a debate about the type of sourcing, not its reliability or independence or significance. Old school saw print as the preferred medium, but the internet has changed that paradigm. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Reviewing the criteria for retention, Falcone’s notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. Despite its overbroad application by the elitist detractors on this AfD, notability is not a high standard.  “Two secondary sources” -- that’s it.  Mr. Falcone is listed in three issues of an regional Upstate New York newspaper (The Auburn Citizen), and the hire at his firm was the subject of Tweet, which is akin to a press release, which is also a secondary source.   Four total, double the standard.  Add the publishings (which are not on his personal blog) and you are at 15 secondary sources, seven times the standard.  Excluding the multitude on-line publishings as a secondary source, the standard is met.  The next question is whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, whether there are enough sources to establish ‘notability.’  Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher.  These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research; (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence.  Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work.  Reliability requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media.  In additional, literary work falls under notability guidelines for people, but “[f]ailure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” The context framing this article subject is electronic magazine, or “eZine” horror, supernatural and psychological thriller writing; this is not a Pulitzer genre but is worthy of coverage by Wikipedia as it is reflective of American popular culture.  Within the eZine context, the subject has been published in two secondary sources, and publishing was competitive.  Unlike a blog, competitive publication requires peer review.  The decisions of each of these editors and their readers, in the aggregate, provides sufficient reliable sourcing establishing notability of this Wikipedia article.  As for the newspaper articles, they are published in the routine reporting of an independent corporation, held to a community standard for accuracy. Hands down, this article wins on notability and sufficient reliability proving independence.  So I vote to keep.  Effete elitist snob (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Effete elitist snob (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * NOTE: Account Effete elitist snob was created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly  to  post here. A WP:SPI  will  be filed shortly. Kudpung (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As a large chunk of this is copied verbatim from the arguments of Cmagha in both Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy and Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere and the rest paraphrased, I refer you to the arguments from other editors at those AfDs, although the subject under consideration here has even more trivial coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appears to have been adapted for this argument; the debate is available to all, and Rap style sampling ought not to be discouraged. If a previous approach is fine, it is fine. Again, this comment above shows that we are not undestanding that the medium has changed. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Remember, the medium we are reviewing is the EZine; though not binding precedent, I think everyone needs to review the other work we have approved, explicitly, or implicitly (through acquiescence), as a Wiki Community. I just went through the letter “A”, for Authors, and this is what I have found. Folks, if you are convinced that this author is notable and the article reliably sourced – Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews – then only no sense of shame would allow you to not approve the article on Mr. Falcone. And look at this one: Jami Attenberg. Another reason the Falcone article meets the Wiki standard. Other articles serving as persuasive precedent for allowing the Falcone article: Mohammed Naseehu Ali (notability and source reliability on par with the article we are discussing); Steve Almond (though the article has a little more style, this author’s work and development as an artist is on par with Mr. Falcone); Lisa Alther (notability and source reliability on par with the article we are discussing); Brian Antoni (I see little difference between the notability of Mr. Antoni’s work, and Mr. Falcone’s, and Mr. Falcone’s seems better documented); Shaila Abdullah (which was flagged as having potential notability problems over a year ago, and which has been left up, showing disparate treatment of subjects); Jacob M. Appel (you’ve allowed this article to stay up since October; his work is about on par with Mr. Falcone’s); Rilla Askew (ditto with this one); William Austin (author) (ditto with this one); Jody Azzouni (ditto with this one); based on these examples, I vote to retain the article. Charles2001 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Charles2001 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment As this is simply a close paraphrase with only the article names changed of Cmagha's final argument in Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, I refer you to my reply there, especially Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. At the argument is presented, rather than just making an 'echo' using another editor's name. And the material is worth reviewing. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Account Charles2001 was apparently created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly  to  post here. A WP:SPI  will  be filed shortly. Kudpung (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. For the reasons articulated above. The numerous sources used in the article provide sufficient evidence of the notability of Mr. Falcone and the credibility of his work. Rippntwinkie (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Rippntwinkie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * NOTE: Account Rippntwinkie was apparently created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly to post here.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The element within the standard governing this is whether, given the lack of substantial depth in coverage, the remaining multiple independent sources establish notability or whether those multiple sources are  ‘trivial coverage’ insufficient to establish notability.  Given that the subject has published through a minimum of 11 competitive processes, which include eZine reviews and hardcopy acceptance for publishing, the remaining independent sources do establish notability.  We should be cautious in making statements which rate “hardcopy” published more significant than digital medium.  There is also a troubling tendency in some editors’ comments to say that “independent” excludes digital sources, or blogs.  “Independent” means “independent” of the subject.  The subject’s blog would be a poor source, but not necessarily others’ blogs.  Increasingly, authors are using Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook and other venues to by-pass those who would curtail speech, public and private.  These sources are acceptable, neutral and not trivial.  The horror eZine “scene” is anti-establishment, and was created by a group of artists marginalized by a cultural elite.  These marginalized artists are significant in and of themselves.  Accordingly, I vote to keep. Guille1292 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Guille1292 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply This nothing to do with rejecting out of hand eZines as sources. The fact is that there is no coverage of Falcone in the eZines either, apart from their having published his stories. There are no interviews with, articles about, or prizes awarded to him by their editorial staff, although they have covered and awarded prizes to many other authors. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Indeed, that is the point: they published his work. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (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.