Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayford Peirce

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayford Peirce[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Lack of independent third-party reliable sources discussing this author. No independent reviews of his books. Article is essentially an advertisement to sell books. Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple books with major genre publishers (Tor and Bantam). It is true that published reviews of his books appear to be hard to locate but I think the SF Encyclopedia is enough. There are also some reviews out there; here are a couple (in German): [1] [2]. This is no more an advertisement than any article on any author. However some unsourced material should probably be trimmed from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flash-zine is a reliable source?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are, it seems, two more (the parts relevant to Peirce not visible online but that's irrelevant for notability): A review of Peirce's Black Hole Planet in the Washington Post (see the actual review text here) and A review of Dinosaur Park in the Arizona Daily Star. I had been assuming in good faith that when you said there were no reviews you had thoroughly searched Google news archive, but apparently not. And here's another genre magazine review: [3]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm notable or not is for others to decide. I will mention that over the years Locus_(magazine) has had many reviews (maybe 20 or 30) of my short stories that were published in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, probably the leading magazine in the field. There have been reviews of my novels in OtherRealms and, for that matter, Analog itself. I've never bothered to keep track of the ones in other countries. (May I also mention the fact that Mr. Sulcer was, for a while, a disgruntled contributor to Citizendium, where, at the time, I was a Constable (the equivalent of an administrator here) -- evidently Mr. Sulcer had issues with some of the other Constables at the time about his contributions and he left in a clearly unhappy frame of mind.) The fact that I have had many published stories in the leading science-fiction and mystery magazines seems to have escaped him also. As a matter fact, there is a new one called The Lethal Leeteg in the August 2013 issue of Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine -- I was paid, I believe, $400 for it, so it is clearly not "self-published".... Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor of EQMM has a blog site where she posts weekly articles by selected writers: you may check out what she wrote about me a few weeks ago at: http://somethingisgoingtohappen.net/2013/04/24/on-location-in-paradise-by-hayford-peirce/ Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The EQMM is a Wordpress site.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's less relevant than whether the information there is under the editorial control of EQMM rather than being a personal blog. Institutional blogs (such as online columns associated with newspapers) can be reliable sources regardless of whether they're called blogs, but personal blogs are rarely reliable. In this case, most of the content at the link looks like a first-hand reminiscence, so it might be ok as a source for simple factual information (such as that the subject lived in Tahiti) but not much more. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Hayford Peirce edits the article Hayford Peirce over 50 times, making major changes, it is a conflict of interest just like his participation in this discussion now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @ David - "Author of multiple books with major genre publishers" is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria at WP:AUTHOR. The Science Fiction Encyclopedia is not sufficient, in terms of WP:V, to keep this article. This article has been around for several years and has been edited extensively by Mr. Peirce himself, so I can't help but think that if the appropriate verifiable references existed they would already have been added. Taroaldo ✉ 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per sources cited above and the subject's publication history discussed in the article itself. This is a weak nomination and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources cited. The WP:COI here is obvious but it has been openly declared as such since 2005. Contributing to this discussion isn't a conflict of interest, especially since he's not !voted and has determined that the decision should be made by consensus not including him. His editing the article is a conflict and he should refrain from doing do. I also think the fact that Mr Hayford hasn't filled the article with links to Amazon and his own websites in an effort sell his books is as valid as Taroaldo's point that he also hasn't added a lot of references. But if there are reviews and references to be added then that's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem, not an WP:AFD sort of problem. Stalwart111 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable author. There is far too much unsourced material here and yes, Peirce's COI is obvious. Neither of these, though, is a reason for deletion. Unsourced material? Tag it for sources or chop it out. COI editing? Monitor the edits, assume good faith and edit as needed. Suppose a major world figure showed up and added to her article that she's simply gorgeous and the most gracious person on the planet. You'd note the COI and take the pruning shears to the article, not kill the article. Some of the edits are completely benign -- helpful even. This spelling correction is his only edit to the article in over 6 years. The "major edit" in 2006 does need some trimming. I encourage concerned individuals to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are links to the references so far:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Peirce

This is a bookstore

Blocked by paywall

Blog-website in German

Website

Wordpress article

Directory listing only

Here are Wikipedia's guidelines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
— --Wikipedia

That's what I am saying. The references do not meet the requirements in my view. Wikipedia's rules make this encyclopedia great. It does not seem wise to bend them because an author happens to be a contributor here. It hurts all our other contributions when an insider gets favorable treatment--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but seriously trim The article is too long, filled with uncited material and opinion. The COI editing is noticeable. Suggest a serious trim. LK (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is more than a problem of trimming. I argue the article is essentially misleading because it paints Peirce as an important sci-fi mystery writer with substantial readers. Clearly he wrote many books. But almost nobody reads them. An unofficial check at Amazon finds only ten (10) reader reviews for 14 books. Why so few? Lack of readership is consistent with lack of media attention and suggests a fringe author. Contrast with Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. 1731 reviews. See the problem?.--13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon Disentimed 2 Amazon reviews

The Thirteenth Majestral 1 review

Phylum Monsters 3 reviews

Chap Foey Rider 0 reviews

Jonathan White 0 reviews

The Burr in the Garden of Eden 0 reviews

Sam Fearon 0 reviews

Flickerman 0 reviews

The Spark of Life 0 reviews

Black Hole Planet 0 reviews

Aliens 0 reviews

With a Bang... 0 reviews

The 13th Death of Yuri Gellaski 0 reviews

In the Flames of the Flickerman 0 reviews

Dinosaur Park 4 reviews

Well then, it's lucky we don't rely on Amazon reader comments when determining notability or this author might be in trouble. Besides which, you missed Dinosaur Park on the first page of results with 4 reviews. To be honest, at the moment I'm more concerned about the unaddressed suggestion that this AFD might have been raised as the result of an off-WP personal dispute between authors. Stalwart111 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vehemence and repetition of the nominator's comments are raising that concern for me as well. Having been heavily involved in the Qworty mess, I find that prospect extremely distasteful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will not add more rebuttals. I added Dinosaur Park totals above. For the record, I have no personal animus towards Mr. Peirce. I worked with him at Citizendium (we sometimes had disagreements but they were not major) but I left there, after much frustration, because the project had no readers. My concern here is entirely motivated by following Wikipedia's rules. My problem is when I tell people I contribute to Wikipedia, and many people doubt the veracity of the project, and it is article like Hayford Peirce which undermine our collective credibility. I will switch my vote to Keep if the solid references total is 3.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those who don't happen to have The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction at hand, the article on Mr. Peirce in the (online) third edition can be found here. For some reason, this doesn't seem to show up on the first several pages of a Google search (unless I've overlooked it). Deor (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination for deltion is totally unwarranted and, as someone already mentioned, seems like part of some kind of personal off-wiki vendetta. Thomas.W (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename Article clearly belongs on Wikipedia under WP:N and WP:V. However, it seems as if the last name "Pierce" is spelled incorrectly in the page title. DrPhen (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current spelling is correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was some question above about whether the WaPo link David Eppstein provided includes a review of "Black Hole Rising". Given the text provided for the article, and this Google search result, I believe it does, and that we're not seeing it because we're looking at a paywalled snippet. In any case, Google, which is independent enough, believes the Washington Post printed that review. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews documented in the entries for the author's books at isfdb.org. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (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.