Talk:Gharlane of Eddore (pen name)

Untitled

Discussion moved here from original single Gharlane of Eddore page as part of splitting it into its two different senses. (Some of the below discussion is obsolete, someone may want to trim it down.) Dougmerritt 00:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw this and my mind immidiately went to Gharlane, the legendary Usenet presence. His real name was Dennis Potter, btw, and though he might not warrant his own article, those who encountered him all those years ago certainly retain fond memories of him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• You mean David Potter, not "Dennis" Potter. (Unless you know something we don't...but I expect that was just a typo)

Considering that the Register obit that's linked here itself links to an article discussing the Usenet Gharlane's physical ID, I think it might be a good idea to include the information therein -- his name and some of his pseudonyms used while writing for print. The current version of this article says that his true identity "remains a mystery", which so far as I can tell is not really correct. Is there any reason NOT to include the info included in the various Register articles?

-TimLynch 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version of this article says that his true identity "remains a mystery", which so far as I can tell is not really correct.

This part is, I think, incontrovertibly true, and I'll delete the incorrect claim. There is some reason not to make the other changes, Gharlane's wishes while he was in this plane of existence; whether that still suffices, I leave to further discussion. FlashSheridan 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I think the "remains a mystery" part is what was really rankling. TimLynch 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a few details about Gharlane of Eddore, the Internet personality. I'm interested in fleshing this article out more when I get the time. Larabar 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We became friends in earlier days of Usenet, even before he adopted the pen-name of Gharlane. I rather faded from the science fiction groups, eventually, while obviously he did not, so I didn't discover his death until, alas, quite some time later. I would have driven up to his funeral, had I known. In any case, the least I can do is this page-splitting and addition of material. Dougmerritt 05:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slight Concern

I'm sorry to be grumpy, but while the "next plane of existence" bit is a lovely bit of phrasing, it's hardly WP:NPOV. Can we change it to something a bit less loaded? --86.128.139.22 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a phrase used commonly in the Lensman novels, and considering this Gharlane's affinity for those books and authorship of the "Lensman FAQ", not at all non-neutral; it is a phrase he quite likely would have picked for himself, if only to stay in character. It may not be strictly "encyclopedic" but I doubt Wikipedia will be harmed materially in that regard by retaining a small bit of whimsey here and there. Jeh 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bigger concern

Pen name or not, this article is poorly sourced (attributing the likes of Usenet, Geocities, and blogs, et cetera) and should be deleted unless it can get in line with our editorial policies. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a perfectly good ref to The Register before you deleted it. Jeh (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Register is a tabloid. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The situation is not that simple; as previously discussed, if you want to challenge the validity of its coverage here (or any other news-centric stories it has carried) you should do a source-by-source review in depth of the article and its writer, or take it to RSN and argue its case.

You lost the AFD attempt. Please accept that and move on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite JBsupreme's refusal to put down the goddamn stick, the fact remains that the references in this article are not as strong or nearly as well-formatted as they should be, and in many cases don't conform to the standards set at WP:CITE. Let's ignore the nonsense, and concentrate on improving this little section of our present visualization of the Cosmic All, in Gharlane's memory. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing in this article is a serious matter and needs to be addressed. If you want to hear less noise about it, put your money where your mouth is and show that this subject has been the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. As of right now, this article is one giant violation of our reliable sources and verifiability policies, and ignoring that problem doesn't make it go away. Furthermore, I'm not sure people who were closely associated with this person should be handling this article at all as there appears to be an underlying conflict of interest at stake which seems to be motivating said ignorance. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JB - I am neither ignorant of our BLP or reliable sources policy nor conflicted out of involvement here due to COI. Even if I was conflicted out due to a conflict of interest, nothing I have done here or contemplated doing here would be subject to WP:COI - we do not require that people never touch articles a COI exists under, only that they be careful with neutrality and disclose the COI if they're editing content. The issue I was dealing with is administrative, not content, and I've disclosed what I should. There is no issue here.

You can take this to ANI for an independent review, if you don't believe me... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And I was never closely associated with the guy, nor even participated in many of the same threads that he did; I just know the venues in which he won his fame, and happen to enjoy some of the same classic literature that he did. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about that, JB. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are more sources than most Wikipedia articles actually have (I’ve often have to create the Reference section when adding to existing unchallenged articles); not all are perfect, and I would certainly prefer that the Register improve its accuracy, but it’s an important source for the areas it covers. (When I was at Palm, we both grumbled about it and read it carefully.) COI: I corresponded with him occasionally and started the original article.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharlane of Eddore (character) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)