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 keep. The article at the time of the nomination was not supported by sufficient sources to establish notability. However, whether to keep an article or not relies on what sources exist, not solely on what is present in the article. The early part of the discussion leans toward deletion and the later part of the discussion is in favor of keeping. In the middle of the discussion Haukurth introduced additional sources and an evaluation of their quality arguing compellingly that they are sufficient to establish the subject as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Comments following Haukurth’s information are nearly all in favor of keeping. It’s appropriate and important in this situation to give greater weight to the portion of the discussion that was based on more complete information, which in this case comprises the later support for keeping the article.

Haukurth should be commended for the doing the heavy lifting of finding the sources, essentially performing the WP:BEFORE that should have been done by the nominator. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kratman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tom Kratman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After multiple years of request for sourcing in talk, article is primarily self-sourced and author notability is not established. Page appears to have been created for possible promotional purposes. SlaterSteven asked for better, non-self-published sources as far back as December 2016 but they have not been found or forthcoming. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*merge with Sad Puppies In effect the only RS we have for this is about the Hugo awards controversy. One mention in an article about other people as well and a load of primary sourcing. No real evidence of any independent notability as an author.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As doubts have been expressed as to my motivation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: Right off the get-go, this is a tainted AfD. I'm opposed in principle to any AfD started by a SPA, given the high likelihood of sock/meatpuppery inherent. When the next two participants are an editor who really does devote much of his user page in a screed against Mr. Kratman (however much he has the most edits to the article over the last four years) and seemingly Kratman himself, this is a trainwreck in progress. I make no judgment of the subject's notability -- however much I agree that there's a lot of primary sourcing that should be stricken from the article -- which can come in a subsequent neutral AfD. Ravenswing 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: your "speedy keep" argument comes down to the fact that though a neutral person started the AfD, the very person who seemingly has waited patiently for two and a half years for someone to post sources actually responded to the AfD, and a troll alleging that the person who asked for sources somehow has a personal vendetta even though they didn't start the AfD? That sounds less like an argument because no matter who starts this, all the troll has to do is run in screaming and you're going to give them a Heckler's veto. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge or notion that you're a "neutral" person. In nearly fifteen years at AfD, my overwhelming experience is that someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of filing an AfD is very, very seldom "neutral." Genuine first-timers to Wikipedia don't have the institutional knowledge. Ravenswing 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And most of those were tagging all the problems with the article, 2 years ago. Arguments at AFD should be based on the subjects notability, not how many times an editor had edited a page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I haven't so much as commented on the Williamson AfD (though I did put in a brief 2c at AN/I) - Kratman isn't notable. He's a troll. Not even a good one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
same people, I was going to strike my vote as "involved", but I am not even aware of the other AFD, so who are these "people"? Nor did I vote delete here. Arguemtns should be based on the notability of the subject, not what you think other users are up to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? It won several awards for the best fanzine and Mike Glyer is a known author. Also, it has a Wikipedia page (albeit one that also needs better sourcing). I admit I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I can't find a problem with it as a source. It could be that I do not understand WP:RS very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopladamus (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it appears you don't understand WP:RS very well. Glyer's work is a blog - and blogs are not considered reliable sources as they lack editorial oversight and any method of organized fact checking and formal retraction. In addition blogs fall under WP:UGC which says that Wikipedia should not use any source that allows user-generated content as a source. So although Glyer's blog is a well-respected and well-known blog, it's still not considered a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, that makes sense. But wouldn't that make io9 the only notable sci-fi/fantasy news site, except maybe Locus Online and Publishers Weekly? Speaking of Publishers Weekly, they also have a few reviews of Kratman's books: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/tom-kratman.html Would these be acceptable as sources? Hopladamus (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Publisher's Weekly reviews are really more short synopses with the odd tentative comment attached; not really up to what one would expect from a citeable book review. (In my evaluation.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same Mike Glyer who publishes rumors of authors being pedos, then when proof is provided that the alleged events never took place and the convention in question denounces the allegation, refuses to pull the rumors, which came from some rando passerby. It has zero credibility as a source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nice try, but they're saying nothing of the sort: the delete voters are pretty four-square in finding that the subject lacks notability. Unlike in the world of politics these days, Wikipedia's far less susceptible to the tactic of denying the facts at the top of your lungs and expecting the sheep to "baaa" worshipfully up at you. Ravenswing 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why all of a sudden, within 48 hours, at least three authors who've passed notability challenges before are suddenly randomly discovered by three different meatpuppets, and the pages of two others are vandalized. Though I note that on his private forum, Kratman asked that it be deleted since he finds association with this group to be degrading. I can see why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I for one don't know what the subject's politics are - I'd never heard of him before reviewing this article, and it doesn't mention his politics. Everything I know about him is what's in the article, and in the reviews I read - none of which mentions his politics. I spent quite a bit of time trying to find evidence of notability which might save the article, but drew a blank. GirthSummit (blether) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am vaugley aware of his politics (well his stated views on some subjects, whether these are politics or a Heinlein like millitraianaism I have no idea). And there is the key, his "politics" are not not new if SF, and in fact hark back to E E Doc Smith and Mack Reynolds (assuming this was not satire). Dodgy power is right right wing politics was a staple of 50's and 60's SF. That did not (and does not) make those authors unnotable, not being notable does.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Haukur. --Goobergunch|? 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we really need are reliable sources that discuss the author or their work, not random things they have been a speaker or panelist of. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm a published author myself who's been a featured panelist at Worldcon and at Boskone, when those conventions were rivaling Worldcon attendance. I don't fancy that any of that qualifies me for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kratman is a legitimate author with at least ten professionally published books. Deleting his page would be in direct contravention to the core goals of Wikipedia. UndeadDan (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC) — UndeadDan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hence the term "professionally published," meaning he was paid an advance, by a major house, and collects royalties. If you are unfamiliar with this very basic industry term, you lack any credentials to comment on members of said community. WP:IDONTKNOWIT remains invalid. He seems to have been paid advances for at least a dozen books, and appears in several bestselling anthologies, and co-wrote with at least one NYT bestseller. Apparently, no one here is capable of using Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. This appears to be yet another politically motiviated attempt to 1984 someone out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txw42 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Txw42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He is not the only right wing SF author around, but many of the rest have won awards or been the subject of major retrospectives (or even had films made based upon their books). Many of them have not been AFD'd, why not if its politics?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correlation may not be causation, but it is certainly suggestive of it. There's a lot of correlation here. Why is it that, of SF authors who are currently subjects for AfDs, all of them are conservative? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had three that I know of, and in one I vote keep. So I am not seeing any causation. Now I cannot speak for anyone else, and that is the problem when you generalize, you undermine your case if any of those who you generalize about can show how your generalization doer not really apply to them. Assuming of course this is even true, and that all of them are conservative.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:agf and wp:npa. Any argument that breaches those is invalid, and will not be "counted".Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're supposed to WP:AGF, but the other side is allowed to throw around accusations of canvassing and meatpupetry and sockpuppetry with wild abandon. Pull the ohter one, it's got bells on. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be noted that Jmaynard is making this claim within minutes of participating in this discussion on Williamson's facebook page. [2] "Jay Maynard Actually, I expect Tom Kratman to be next." "Aaron Bosen They already tried." "Glenn Edward McNally Jay Maynard didnt they already go after tom" "Michael Z. Williamson Yeah, they're in the process of trying to delete his right now." This has been followed by him making this false and inciteful accusation of a conspiracy multiple times across multiple pages in rapid succession. [3] [4] [5] [6]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it walks like a conspiracy and quacks like a conspiracy, then why shouldn't we conclude it's a conspiracy? And again, I'm not the one doing the inciting - not even on Mike's Facebook page, where I've defended Wikipedia before. You guys are making me look like a fool for doing so -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no such claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG. There is an entry for him written by John Clute in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which is a standard reference work in the field.[7] The encyclopedia is now online but earlier editions appeared in print. There is also significant analytical coverage of his work in a completed, publicly available PhD thesis (the name 'Kratman' appears 40 times in the document) which is a usable source according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.[8]

There is also enough "sustained critical attention" to make a good case for a keep based on WP:AUTHOR. His books with John Ringo (Watch on the Rhine, Yellow Eyes, and The Tuloriad) likely all meet WP:BOOK and have received reviews including a scathing one by Dietmar Dath in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.[9] Kratman's solo novels have also received a number of reviews, including a detailed critical one by perennial Hugo nominee Joseph T. Major: [10] (Alexiad, February 2009, pp. 3-4). There is also a printed article in the Big Issue in 2015 which discusses his work in context with other military science fiction authors. (Buchanan, Craig. "Sci-Fi Battlefields". The Big Issue, 16 April 2015. p. 30.) This is just for starters but it is enough to convince me of notability and that a decent policy-compliant article can be written. I don't, however, have the energy for yet another rescue project right now so I may not get around to this within the timeline of this AfD. Hopefully someone else does. But if this discussion is closed as delete then please do so without prejudice to a new properly sourced article being written. Haukur (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One review of a book he co-authored with John Ringo in which he's mentioned exactly once, is hardly compelling. Fanzines aren't WP:RS per WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fanzine in question does not at all fall under WP:UGC which is about user-generated content like wikis or forums. Alexiad is basically a traditional publication with particular editors and bylines for its reviews. Haukur (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in another AfD someone made a good point that arguments that a book satisfies [[WP:BOOK] make for WP:AUTHOR compliance is contrary to WP:INHERIT. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERIT specifically has an exemption for WP:AUTHOR where notability is indeed inherited in the sense the critical coverage of the works translates into notability for the author. Haukur (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think that's the case. What is stated at WP:AUTHOR (and somewhat vaguely referenced at WP:INHERIT) is that great notability of the author may render their work notable (point 5 at WP:BKCRIT). I don't see the inverse case (notable book reflecting on notability of the author). Can you point that out? (NB, even if that was the case, we are nowhere near such a threshold through the coverage of Kratman's books.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be happy to clarify. WP:INHERIT says that "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". Note that WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE direct to the same thing and WP:INHERIT has a comment in the source text that says "See #3&#4". Part of #4 says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention" and that is what I am referring to here. So, once we sort through the whole alphabet soup, the point is that authors inherit notability from "significant critical attention" to their works, e.g. book reviews and academic analysis. How much is 'significant' is left for us to decide but it should be decided in accordance with the present norms at AfD and we shouldn't apply a higher (or lower) bar here than we normally do. Haukur (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your interpretation of policy. But I don't think Kratman has had anything close to significant critical attention. He has had some critical attention, but the biggest positive there seems to be reflected glory from John Ringo (who is certainly notable). And as such, I just don't think he meets the bar. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research I think Simonm223's point here about reflected glory is very strong. Baen seems to have a pattern with those dual titles and specifically, tying them to John Ringo seems to be a tactic for both pumping up Ringo's yearly output by shifting the workload (5 with one undercard, 6 with that, 5 with another, 4 with that one, 3 with yet another, and so on) and letting the newcomer tag along on the coattails. In fact, of 78 books listed for Ringo at GoodReads, only 10 are credited to Ringo as sole author. I'm probably dating myself making this comparison but it's like a promoter giving a new wrestler a short tag team run with Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair when they can't generate notability or a fanbase on their own. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question, if he is so notable and we have all these great sources, why does the article still reply on the self promotional ones? Why has no one tried to improve the sourceing?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's only been two days and there are many things to do. I agree the article needs work. I've been gathering sources and looking at how to summarize them but it takes time to get the ducks in a row. Haukur (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)A better question might be “If he is so non-notable, why has he been a focus of your user page for three years?”

Aside from that, of course, the rules on deletion are pretty clear: the state of the article is only relevant when it is so spectacularly bad that it creates an impediment to fixing it, and this piece is nowhere near the WP:TNT level. Qwirkle (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that others disagree this is not beyond fixing. As to the rest, it was not me who deemed him notable, it was me finding the fact he found me notable risible.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly for the same bad reason as yourself, by the look of it. If you can wander into a mainstream mass-market bookstore and see an author advertised by a lifesize cardboard cutout, odds are they are notable in some context. Qwirkle (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, WP:BOOKCRIT: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as... bestseller lists [4](see footnote at BOOKCRIT - not all bestseller lists quality)". AUTHORS, of course, derive notability from creating notable books. In other words, bestseller listings sdo contribute to E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's leaning really hard on WP:INHERIT. Moreso than I'm comfortable with in the case of such an unaccomplished author. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, let's be clear. It was one book, 8th most popular SF hardcover for one week on the WSJ sub-list a decade ago. This wasn't like it was NYT bestselling fiction all genres. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is cumulative and this adds a smidgen of notability. That said, I took the trouble of contesting your sweeping assertion that "Bestseller lists don't establish notability." because editors, especially new editors, learn the ropes by hearing such rules in AfD discussions. It is necessary to be specific about which bestseller lists confer notability so as not to mislead fellow editors who may take a firm but inaccurate statement from an experienced editor as gospel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that it was just this issue that brought me to Mr Kratmans page two years ago, the issue of whether or not an appearance in a niche and short duration best seller list is enough to confer notability (or something like that).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • bestseller lists are "short duration" by definition. As a said, it confers a mere smidgen of notability. Notability here is relatively weak, supported by the sources cumulatively. Magic bullets are nice, but far more rare in real life than in genre novels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2019 (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.
More