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 of the debate was Delete all. I won't protect the deleted pages because these pages haven't been deleted then recreated. I have no prejudice against a future page protection if users recreate these articles after deletion. --Deathphoenix 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruin Mist, The Kingdoms and the Elves, In the Service of Dragons, Ruin Mist Chronicles, King's Mate, Doamanse, Magic Lands, List of Ruin Mist characters, List of Ruin Mist articles, The Alders, The Tyranths, The Brodsts, The Duardins, The Rivens, The De Vits, The Fraddylwickes, Adrynne, The Froen d'Gas, Amir & Ky'el, Elves (Ruin Mist), Eagle Lords (Ruin Mist), Titans (Ruin Mist), Dragons (Ruin Mist), The Tabborraths[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek

Please note: This AFD applies to a large number of pages. There are also various redirect pages (eg, Ruinmist) not listed; a vote to delete the lot will be interpreted as including those.

This one is a bit odd, so please bear with me. Basically, Robert Stanek is an almost entirely non-notable author, with hordes of obscure fantasy books coming from a small press, which he may or may not control. But he has a very good PR machine, which makes him seem like a major author; dedicated fans fill Amazon with glowing reviews, vaguely threatening 'legal' letters mysteriously get sent to places that mention that his books are not very good, and so forth. And in December, this PR machine hit Wikipedia; see WP:AN. Hordes of links to his material from unrelated pages; hordes of pages on his stuff. A lot of the cruftier stuff got trimmed then - I know, I did some - and we left it.

Last night, a couple of the authors of these pages started blanking Talk:Robert Stanek, demanding that comments suggesting astroturfing were removed. Fun ensued; see WP:AN/I. So I got to thinking about our pages on his works... hence, this AFD. I've been reflecting on these articles, and they're just not worth keeping.

• I'd be uneasy with anything running to this detail on a "real" novel... and as it is, given the obscurity of Stanek's books, I really feel we're just being used for astroturfing. WP:NOT a soapbox; astroturfing is self-promotion in all but name, IME. It's certainly not motivated by improving the encyclopedia.

• The obscurity of Stanek's work means that these pages will likely suffer the fate of vanity pages - even if they weren't created by him, they are of interest to a very small number of people, and will likely be left unmaintained for long periods. Many of them haven't been touched at all since the frenzy of creation, with the rest maybe getting a typo fixed or a link disambiguated.

• Merging and redirecting without going to AFD was possible, but I know that would just result in me being yelled at (you should see Talk:Robert Stanek), and trying to see if community consensus agreed with me seemed smarter. Plus, this way I get to shift the buck to "Wikipedia". :-)

• The books are, IME, non-notable... but due to the nature of the situation that's hotly debated. It is something to bear in mind, though.

Thoughts? I do feel we'd be better off without them. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added The Tabborraths, which I missed earlier. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eakers4 added Robert Stanek to the list of deletions here. I feel it needs to be considered seperately - very different arguments for deletion apply to it (and I for one am ambivalent over deleting it). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek.

---

1. Delete the lot! Off with their heads! Egregiously non-notable vanity articles. Zora 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   <looks at Zora; shakes head> Off with thier heads? Moe ε 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Delete this entire self-published "universe" --Ruby 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Delete vanity articles. Moe ε 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all; God will know His own. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot. Dlyons493 Talk 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like his dad also was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross [1]. That's impressive - can't be many other fathers and sons with similar awards. But it doesn't make his books any more notable unfortunately. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Expunge with flame  ALKIVAR™ 00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, as above. --Carnildo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Robert Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. (Heh. "Astroturfing" - must remember that...) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, self-promotion, no context, unmaintainable, waste of time, et alii. -- Krash (Talk) 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• verify: This deletion is out of process. I didn't even see a verify sign or a sources need. Come back once that's been done and please take a look at WP:DENSE. --CyclePat 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I confess to being quite baffled by a) what the link to m:Don't be dense is meant to tell me, and b) where this specific process to which you refer sprang from when I wasn't looking... Shimgray | talk | 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is, given CyclePat's track record of imperfect (to be polite) understanding of how AfD works, it means nothing at all to worry about. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete aggressive self-promotion/aggressive fancruft, take your pick. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Redirect Ruin Mist, The Kingdoms and the Elves, In the Service of Dragons, and Ruin Mist Chronicles to Robert Stanek; Delete with extreme prejudice everything else. --Calton | Talk 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Calling the fiction of this author "obscure" would be elevating its position far above what it deserves, and it's clear from my following of the backtrails and other contributions of his supporters/sockpuppets earlier today that their ONLY contributions outside his specific topics have been to weasel references into other non-related topics. This disease is already rampant on Amazon and Usenet - It's pure astroturf, it has no business here.
  Also, note that the "author" topic had a history of either copyright infringement (the posting of the covers of multiple novels without permission of the publisher) or blantant promotion (if the publisher was the individual posting them). I made the edit deleting them just before the start of the current revertwar. 69.213.249.15 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek After reading Monicasdude's comments below, I have to agree. Redirect to the author's page, allow a single mention of the fiction (as opposed to a listing of every single edition and variation of each book), perhaps one thumbnailed cover as an example, and there maintain as well the record of the astroturfing here and on Amazon and the attempted supression of/retaliation for bad reviews and commentary questioning the validity of the reviews. 69.213.249.15 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) New perm ID Synthfilker 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Elaboration Thatcher131 has it right, I think. I've been trying to figure out a concise way of saying that myself. There's also going to need to be a general housecleaning to remove astroturf from articles like this: [2], (under the "In Modern Literature" heading, left only to provide an example) Synthfilker 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete the lot! Deepd 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of the articles, per nomination. Sandstein 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still vote delete, but bear in mind that some of the users urging deletion are anonymous or very new, which is odd. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Sandstein 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, blank, and redirect to Robert Stanek. This guy is the Angelyne of the fantasy/sf world and is therefore, for better or worse, notable. The deletion alternative simply makes Wikipedia his silent accomplice (which is why the author's apparent anon/sockpuppets are pushing deletion). Monicasdude 16:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all? I can see a reason for redirecting, say, his book titles, but there doesn't seem to be any benefit to redirecting things like Titans (Ruin Mist). Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, blank, and redirect, per 69.213.249.15 and Monicasdude. ergot 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank, redirect and protect pages that are the titles of his books. Delete pages that refer to characters or situations within the books. Thatcher131 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (to Robert Stanek) and protect book titles; delete character names and monster types. Barno 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• K,B,R per Monicasdude and Barno. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, protect. Pavel Vozenilek 05:27, 24 February 2006 (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.