Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Durel

__NOINDEX__

Steven Durel
Seems like vanity...69.177.128.183 claims not to be him but I am suspicious. Also, Rick Cane, the subject of Durel's writing. (69.177.128.183 also created Bacon Academy but that is probably okay, minus the mention of Durel.) Adam Bishop 03:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: Steven Durel  ''. Well, that proves the vanity issue. CryptoDerk 06:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. That IP traces back to Connecticut, where Durel is from.  The ISBNs and books can't be found anywhere except his site (plus anyone can get an ISBN).  5 websites on google, and rickcane.com looks like a geocities page circa 1998.  The "publisher" of his books has a website and, surprise, it redirects to rickcane.com.  CryptoDerk 03:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * As it would. The article does say that Durel self-published his novel.  Assuming good faith on the part of 69.177.128.183, knowing that there's the possibility that Steven Durel could have a fan in the same state as himself, and even though there's suspiciously more information in the article than can be gleaned from the author biography on the web site, I disagree with vanity.  But I question notability. Delete. Uncle G 05:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the IP thing for 2 reasons, 1) it could support Adam's view, and 2) it presents the view that he is only known locally. Regarding the ISBN thing, sure a lot of people self publish, but I mention it to bring into question notability. I think a lot of people would see an ISBN and automatically assume notability, so that's just some preemptiveness on my part.  To me, anyway, the vanity view can only be supported circumstantially, so I'm much more comfortable arguing the notability issue.  That being said, the article does reek of a lot of information that just isn't at all relevant with respect to what he is supposedly notable for, such as his parents getting divorced, his political views, and his travels abroad.  Also I just noticed: regarding the newspaper article about him, it's from a paper that he used to work for, hmm... OH SNAP! I sent an email to Steven Durel and he emailed me back: '' Received: from [69.177.128.183] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:06:58 PST
 * Note: 69.177.128.183 just removed the email header from my comment. CryptoDerk 06:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * A comment on the paper issue: That report is dated June 2001. Durel's biography says that he was not employed by that paper until over a year later.  I don't think the newspaper can be faulted for employing an author that they once did a story on.
 * Delete vanity Cdc 04:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity and lying don't make for good articles or good Wikipedia editors. Jayjg |  (Talk)  19:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I note that IP 69.182.21.102 has just vandalized this page, removing all delete votes and negative comments. This is IP 69.182.21.102's only edit; an odd coincidence that they would find this specific sub-page to vandalize, and would vandalize it in this way. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. All the IPs that have edited this page are from SBC snet.net in Connecticut.  They're all Steven Durel.  CryptoDerk 20:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearest possible example of a vanity page. Steven, this information should be on your user page, if anywhere. GeorgeStepanek\talk  22:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Megan1967 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-promoting vanity, sockpuppet. Wyss 05:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE, clear poppycock. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 11:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A Question of Credibility - There is so much useless stuff on this web site. You have to acknowledge that.  Who does this hurt?  Who does it offend?  If Wikipedia is really a global information center, then this post should be kept as-is.  But we all know it's going to be deleted just by the tone of everyone here, so just get it over with.
 * If you feel that there is "so much useless stuff", then feel free to list things for deletion, as per the deletion policy. Thus, I do not acknowledge it.  If I see something that is non-encyclopedic, vanity, nonsense, etc. then I take appropriate action.  Other users do the same.  If you've noticed something that has slipped through the crack then feel free to bring it to someones attention, or rectify it yourself.  Additionally, I think you are misinformed about what Wikipedia is and is not, I suggest you read Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.  Finally, you will see on the deletion policy page that vanity pages should be listed on VFD for deletion.  I do hope you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia, we could always use more good editors.  CryptoDerk 06:36, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable votes

All of these votes/comments (all but one unsigned) come from IPs belonging to the SBC SNET and can all be traced to Connecticut.
 * Comment: As one of the poor souls who occasionally tries to close these discussions, may I request that you please leave these "questionable votes" where they were contributed?  It is helpful to have such votes tagged as suspicious.  Your IP investigation is good data.  It's also helpful to standardize the bulleting and indentation.  But as a general rule, actually moving the votes destroys the context both of their comment and of the replies from experienced users.  It also confuses the edit history.  In some cases, that has been important to sorting out the decision.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Do Not delete. I have seen Durel at two different book signings in Connecticut.  He is somewhat known in the New England-New York area.  He's not a phony, even if he was jerk enough to write a biography on himself.  Maybe someone should just edit out some of the fluff.
 * don't delete. i have heard of steven durel. he is the writer of the rick cane series. why don't you contact waldenbooks and ask them if steven durel has ever done signings for them, because they will tell you that he did. he might not be dean koontz, but he still is a published author. why not have an article on him?--69.0.73.165 21:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I am the person that posted this. I don't really care if you delete this because I'm not Durel.  He's just a favorite author of mine, so I felt like posting an article about him.  He's a real author and I bought his book at a book signing in Manchester, CT.  There is a news article about him that I included that I think should be taken into consideration.  If you guys want to delete it, feel free.  I don't care.  I was just trying to help out because I thought this site is supposed to be some type of large information center.
 * If you did obtain all of this detailed biographical information by some means other than the simple expedient of being Steven Durel yourself, then you can allay our suspicions of you by citing your sources, as the edit page told you to do. There's stuff in the article (such as the fact that Durel is "known to be a strict libertarian") that simply isn't in the sources that you did cite. Uncle G 05:50, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * Listen, I got the information from books and newsletters sent to fan club members (see the web site) and from Ubersite (check out Steven Durel's submissions at www.Ubersite.com). You guys seem to be putting too much thought into this.  If you really believe that I'm Durel and I'd be vain enough to write an article about myself, then delete it.  Whatever.  The guy has a bunch of other stuff online and in Connecticut that establishes who he is, so I'm sure he wouldn't care.  I'm only pissed because I spent time on this and I'm being accused of actually being Durel.  Just delete it.  I'm not fixing it, so please feel free to do what you will.