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. The concensus is that there are insufficient reliable, independent sources to show that this author meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neil Falcone[edit]

Ryan Neil Falcone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author of minor fiction that has been published in magazine. The citation to "With Many Shades, Fantasy and Science Fiction" is to a blog. Article was created by a member of the subject's undergraduate fraternity. (See Peter Shalvoy and Aaron Raitiere below.) Racepacket (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 18:16, November 2, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These sources are sufficient to prove threshold notability. While some of the sources are non-traditional media, they come within Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. With respect to Racepacket’s allegations of editor conflict of interest, Racepacket ought to be careful. The Cornell WikiProject page lists Racepacket as a former member of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, Class of 1973. Is this article not within the Board of Trustees guidelines for suitable identification with the University? Does techno music, blue grass music and horror fiction somehow convey an image the Cornell Board of Trustees would rather not present? How can we tell Racepacket is not conflicted in his or her initiation of an AfD. Indeed, who from the Cornell community is talking with Racepacket, guiding Racepacket’s actions. The article is neutral in its writing and the sourcing confirms notability. And what about Racepacket’s articles, many of which are on Cornell topics? Are those conflicted if this one is? Wehatweet (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - I disclose my potential COI, but most of the articles I edit have numerous contributors. Here we have articles that are created by an SPA who specializes in documenting recent alumni of a particular fraternity chapter. I don't see notability from substantial coverage by independent secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:Author.4meter4 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources establish the subject exists. They fall short of showing the subject meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The substandard governing this case 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 competitve processes, which include eZine reviews, the remaining independent sources do establish notability. Accordingly, I vote to keep.Tea36 (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC))— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong delete This is basically an unreferenced (and seemingly unreferenceable) biography of a living person. I have removed per WP:BLP the date and place of birth as well as other 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 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.[1] (This story also generated 5 two sentence comments by other website users.[2]) 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. Comprehensibly fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment – Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to administrator. This debate has been influenced by confirmed sockpuppets through checkuser: User:Wehatweet and User:Tea36.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck the above. Not sockpuppets after further checkuser. See final admin notes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmagha/Archive – Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Again, we see generation differences between reviewers. The eZine scene is where publishing is going, yet the detractors are seeing such work as evidence of inferiority. Multiple works by author were competitive, writing which had to compete against others. Lebowski 666 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Generation differences" have nothing to do with this. Publishing exclusively in online publications (provided they are notable in themselves, and where there is significant editorial control over contents, not simpy "send us your story and we'll publish it") is not a problem per se. The problem is that all of the "references" provided simply attest to the fact that these stories exist and have been written by this person. There is no coverage of either him or those stories, apart from this single sentence in an article about an entirely different subject (the ezine attempting to go print again) [3]:

  "Although we did recently publish a story titled “Six” by a new author named Ryan Neil Falcone that had nearly 70 votes, which is pretty good, for MC and for Ryan—congratulations Ryan and we wish you well on your future writing endeavors."

  There is not a single review provided in any kind of publication. Wikipedia's standard of notability is not dependent on fame, importance to other people, popularity, or accomplishment. It is dependent on whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You may not like those basic and essential criteria, nor the criteria for a reliable source, but that's what you have to work with here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviewing the criteria for retention, notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. We ask whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, are there 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, we 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. His 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 seven other sources, 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. As for the arguments to “Delete”; talk overstates the WP:Author standard; clicked on the sources and noting their nature mitigates his argument. The article is within the WP:Author standard. Edward321 gives a conclusory statement, but does not articulate a rationale. Voceditenore provides the best contra-rationale, but that rationale is tailored for the print, and not the eZine, media. For these reasons, and for lack of effective argument to the contrary, ‘Keep.’ Cmagha (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All this wall of text says is that you think Falcone passes the notability criteria because he has verifiably had 9 stories published in online magazines. Note that the 10th will allegedly be published in Death Head Grin in December, but Falcone's name appears nowhere on the site. Five are one-man, self-published websites which don't pay authors but offer "exposure". [4], [5] , [6] [7] [8]. One has a staff of three but likewise doesn't pay [9]. One has a staff of four, doesn't pay but occasionally gives what they call "token prizes" ranging from $50 to $15 (No evidence that Falcone has won one of these)[10]. One with an indeterminate "staff" pays a share of the sales if the story appears in its yearly anthology (Falcone's has not.) [11]. One is a student magazine [12]. One, Macabrecadaver.com, the most professional of the lot, pays a flat rate of $10 per story.[13].

  This 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. And no, my rationale is not tailored to print. Macabrecadaver.com publishes lengthy articles, interviews, and reviews, but has nothing about Falcone or his work. Absentwillowreview.com also has interviews [14] and "Editor's Choice" Awards [15], but Falcone appears in neither. None of this is surprising, since he appears to only have started publishing his stories seven months ago. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conflict of Interest. Several voters at this particular AFD have an admitted Conflict of Interest. The subject of this article is/was a fellow member of a fraternity at Cornell with User:Cmagha, User:Lebowski 666, User:Wehatweet, and User:Tea36. This conflict of interest extends to several other current AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). 4meter4 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lebowski 666 does not have an affiilation to the fraternity [16], only to the article's creator, Cmagha. [17] Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Help me understand why you these people conspirators, and yet this activity is not problematic at this point, and at this point. We just check in, read and comment. But this is coordination at these points, isn’t it? It seems all right. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay3332, you have cross-posted the above from AN/I. You will find the responses to your query there, including a reminder of the advice an adminstrator gave you here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) updated Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails to meet guidelines for notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - activity by editors with a COI is deeply troubling and closing admin should weight the views of this group of editors accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - meets notability, reliability and verifiability as stated above; and I have no COI in this matter. Coldplay3332 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable per WP:AUTHOR, as the individual is not an important figure widely cited by peers, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, nor has their work won significant critical attention. I'm afraid that this article appears to have been created simply to promote the author. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources in the article, and I didn't find anything during my online search (aside from obscure fan sites).--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.