Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Thomas (writer)

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. Refs discovered during AfD should be incorported into the article. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Thomas (writer)

Jeffrey Thomas (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Cannot find enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable. His published work is among many indpendent presses and haven't received much in the way of third-pary coverage. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: He has been on the ballot for both the John W. Campbell Award and the Bram Stoker Award for different works, which indicates notability. References exist within the article, but, of course, could be improved. Also while his publications are through Small Press/Independent Presses, they are presses that impose editorial decisions and are not vanity presses. Shsilver (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Not winning a Stoker or a Campbell doesn't confer notability. If he had won, we might be talking about something, but as it is, you can get on the ballot of most of these awards simply by submitting a copy of your work for review (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm leaning that way, considered how many books I've seen being touted as having been on the Stoker preliminary ballot). I don't think that the presses he publishes through concern us. As far as the significant critical attention that would be his route to notability—he's seen a lot of blog attention, but I can't find any solid newspaper, literary magazine, journal, or periodical reviews. If he was notable, there'd be at least one of these. No way to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG in this state. — Chromancer ^talk
  • Comment Chromance is simply speaking from pure ignorance here. The Bram Stoker awards make a distinction between recommended (someone puts it on the list), a preliminary ballot or longlist, and the final ballot. The Campbell Award is a juried award (there are two Campbells, one for "new writer" and one for books--Thomas has been nominated for the latter). It is amazing how frequently and how freely people on Wiki insist that whatever vague notions in their heads are facts when ten seconds of research could explain the truth.

cont 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: I cannot believe, with his body of work and notability, that this page is being considered for deletion. Jeffrey Thomas is a fine writer and more than deserving of a Wiki page. His body of work is far more extensive than other writer's who have pages here in addition to being nominated for several prestigious awards. You would let a hack like Nick Mamatas have a page yet deny Jeffrey Thomas one? Thomas has a larger body of work, has been reviewed in the very prestigious Publishers Weekly and has been a finalist for several awards. That alone should qualify him for a page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Magazine review, Publisher's Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84416-447-9, magazine review, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/feb/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview16?INTCMP=SRCH Talien79 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• KEEP: First off, he was not just on the ballot for those awards, he was a finalist. Consider his competition for the Campbell Award, his novel went up against the works of Michael Chabon, Kathleen Goonan, Sherri S. Tepper, Jay Lake, Brian Aldiss, and Ken McLeod http://www2.ku.edu/~sfcenter/campbell-finalists.htm. What this appears to be is a matter of recognition. Thomas has been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly several times, it's not difficult to find these http://search2.publishersweekly.com/search?site=all&client=universal&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=universal&filter=p&tlen=128&q=jeffrey+thomas. You won't find a single bad review of his work on Amazon, and in my opinion a consumer's review is far more important than any literary critic.
• Comment from nominator: First of all, please note what Chromancer stated, that in fact being nominated for an award does not necessarily confer notability. It seems every time an author (particularly one who writes science fiction) is nominated for deletion, legions of fans come out and claim that because the author was nomintated, short-listed or even made it to the finalist regarding the Stoker or the Campbell or some other award. I'm not sure the Stoker award denotes any distinguished writing. By that I mean the award seems to avoid the traditional system of judging work on its own merit and fostering competition among the applicants, and instead encourages newer writers to break into the publishing industry by receiving attention they wouldn't otherwise get. Thus, works can be nominated by anyone in the HWA, and this essentially makes any writer nominated able to make the preliminary ballot. I see the PW reviews, and this helps. But note, Amazon reviews (for the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer) and claiming he is a "fine writer...deserving of more than a Wiki page" once again turns this into a voting contest, something this isn't supposed to be.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "For the record, literary critics are more qualified than a random Amazon reviewer." Are they really? Why? Just because someone makes their living writing reviews does not make them any more qualified to decide what is and is not good, since reviews by their very nature are highly subjective. Let's remember that if the critics had been right (which, I think, most people would agree they weren't), Les Misérables would have closed within a week instead of becoming the longest-running musical in history! It was utterly panned by those "qualified" people! Just one example. No, critics are no more qualified to judge a work than the rest of us - they just get more airtime. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The comment I made was in reference to the remark that since there "isn't one bad review of this guy's work on Amazon" he is therefore a good writer and must be notable. I don't necessarily think that because someone is a critic they automatically decide for everyone what is good or what is not. Surely, that's not the intent. I mean, a reader can read a review of a book and agree. But the critic is epressing his or her view on the work, analyzing it, reviewing it, discussing it and maybe (often, it seems) torching it in the process. Again, this doesn't mean they are deciding for others "what is good and what is not", because one would hope the readership decides that on their own. And so they have, apparently with this author, on Amazon. Well, great. But the thing is, literary critics generally have criticism that holds more weight than the average joe. And yes, they get more airtime, often because they are more qualified than the average person. Don't believe me? Why do you think blurbs are included on books? Think they don't sway opinon? I'm not going to arge whether they are right or wrong, if they are dispensing subjective advice for a paycheck, if or how they are qualified, but I do think it's worth noting this author hasn't had much in the way of any substantial reviews. A 200 word blurb does not cut it, and as I have said before if we used Publisher's Weekly as the sole source of how we determine notability we'd have no space left on this encylcopedia for authors.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment from Talien79: Thank you for recognizing the previously cited sources as legitimate. In relation to Mr. Thomas' notability regarding awards: "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." WP:ANYBIO We have established that Mr. Thomas has in fact been nominated twice as a finalist (not just merely nominated) for "well-known and significant" awards. How do we know these awards are well-known and significant? Because they are on Wikipedia. You argument lends credence that the Stoker award should be removed from Wikipedia, not Mr. Thomas himself. Focusing on the notability guidelines for Creative Professionals, WP:AUTHOR it seems we are primarly concerned with #3: "3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If that's the case, are the previously cited independent periodical reviews a sufficient test of notability? Talien79 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I cannot emphasize more how much 200-word blurbs, which are not critically significant, cannot confer notability. Neither the Guardian mention (not even a full article, a paragraph in a new books section) nor the Publisher's Weekly blotter mention are sufficient to pass criterion 3. And again, not winning an award does not confer notability. It doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on, he still didn't win anything. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Agreed, it doesn't matter what portion of the ballot he was on because it is not necessary to receive an award for notability. WP:ANYBIO indicates he can be "nominated for one several times." How many is several? Talien79 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: Talien, we're seeing if the source(s) help the subject clear the hurdle of notability. So far, this author fails. You are not correct to assume just because an award is listed on WP it is notable. There are many articles on WP representing subjects that have no place in an encyclopedia. It is our job to collectively make this place full of articles on bona fide subjects rather than a place for vanity and fan fervor. If we had an article for every author mentioned in PW this would be a very busy place. In terms of WP:ANYBIO, the criterion is not to be interpreted as strict policy, more of suggestions for how to reach a consensus. That being said, it is worth noting that the subject of this article has recently been editing his own page (since I first nominated the article for deletion), and although this doesn't immediately violate WP:COI (as far as I know) it doesn't help us. If in fact you agree with me the Stoker awards are not an important award (or at least carry distinction the way other literary awards earned by writers judged by, say a blind-review process or a jury of some type without input from fans) than this writer--whom people have claimed has been nominated many times--is not notable. It's open and shut.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Jimsteele9999 has a habit of discussing literary awards while knowing nothing about them. Not every book or story recommended for a Stoker makes the preliminary ballot, not every work on the preliminary ballot makes the final ballot. The Stoker is also not an award granted by "input from fans", but by members of a professional association--the Horror Writers Association. (Incidentally, the far more prestigious and venerable Hugo IS a fan-award, essentially, and is absolutely an important award.) JimSteele, why do you continually propose writer articles for deletion when you know little about the subject, and why do you insist on propogating misinformation about the Stoker, Hugo, World Fantasy, etc. Also, you know very little about publishing--an independent press is not an inferior model of a major press. Large presses such as W.W. Norton are independent, small imprints such as Tweleve (only a dozen books a year!) are boutique elements of major presses. Solaris, which published Thomas titles, releases work in mass market paperback; by definition print runs are in the tens and tens of thousands. JimSteele999, you should not be allowed to put works up for deletion on topics about which you know nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.68.29 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I'm trying to understand here, so please forgive my ignorance - if we're trying to reach a consensus, aren't existing articles on Wikipedia representative of that consensus? I personally haven't done enough research to determine if the Stoker awards aren't worthy of notability, but if they aren't, I would imagine the entry should be nominated for deletion too, right? I only used the notability guidelines because the first line advocating deletion indicates that there are "not enough reliable sources that indicate this author is notable." If we're not using notability guidelines, the second statement ("haven't received much in the way of third-party coverage") has already been countered. There's plenty of third party coverage. Follow up statements seem to indicate that said third party coverage should be notable. So I'm assuming we should focus our conversation on the notability of the coverage itself (length of reviews or mentions, content, etc.) than the fact that it was covered by third parties. If at issue isn't notability, but in fact WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, then I suppose the argument rests entirely with the admin's opinion (I have no idea who the admin is in this case) of whether or not the page should be deleted. I know rough consensus isn't a headcount issue, but I think I've tried to lay out the case for retaining the article as cogently as I could, within the boundaries of 1) notability of the author (not his nominations), and 2) the original arguments provided for deletion. I would hope that any discussion here, by virtue of the need for consensus, is never "open and shut." Talien79 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. My instinct is that this chap has enough published works to be worthy of an article. He has been nominated for awards. His works are readily available. They're not just vanity press publications. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines, not set-in-stone policies. I think it's moot whether he meets the notability guidelines or not, but I think it would be hard to say he actually outright fails them. Therefore I'm coming down on the keep side. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a no-brainer. The author has been a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and John W. Campbell Award, is published by reputable presses, and has independent sources to back up his notability. While the article could and should be improved so it has more sources and information, the article's quality issues are not a valid reason for deletion.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A person who was a finalist for the Bram Stoker Award and a finalist for the John W. Campbell award is an author who has achieved notability within those writing groups, and that is reflected by the references given. htom (talk) 18:23, 28 May 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.