Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Scullion

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 Delete both. Keilana^talk 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Scullion[edit]

NN person and I suspect is probably an autobio. This google search (which subtracts WP, Amazon, Lulu, and book from the search) returns 559 G-hits, most seeming to be forum/blog postings and other people than the subject. The bundled book is also self-published, the more famous names said to be in the book are actually quotes from other published work by those famous names, not original content. Pigman☿ 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non-notable book. this google search returns five hits:[reply]

It lacks coverage from reliable, third party sources though by the looks of this google search he's an author all right. I suggest keeping and cleaning up.--Phoenix -wiki 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I might suggest my google searches above instead? I refined them a little more than yours. The only parameter which might have been misapplied/bad was connecting "-book" with Sean Scullion's name search. It was intended to eliminate bookstores but could well have eliminated pertinent hits. Leaving the book parameter off results in 865 hits. Pigman☿ 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. I tried researching and sourcing these and they are not salvageable or appropriate for WP. I prodded both articles, but the author contested. The book is the first, self-published release by a new editor/author. We don't write about newly-released, self-published books by unknown authors. Reading through the g-search, I get the distinct impression there's more than one author by this name, so you have to use a more refined search. As I'm pretty certain both these articles are autobios, I think he would have added the other works if he had written them, rather than saying this is his first book, and his only other work being an article on a website. G hits on "Sean Scullion" plus Australia considerably narrows the field. There's a mention in a demo report from London on indymedia UK but, assuming its the same person, I don't think that's enough to source an article, and most of the others are message boards or WP mirrors. Same g-news search gets zero results, "Sean Scullion" plus author gets one g-news hit, but it seems unrelated. Seems like a well-intentioned person, and I have sympathy for the subject matter, but both are nn. (Also, the book needs to be searched on with the whole title, "Liber Malorum" + "Children Of The Apple" as "Liber Malorum" is a common phrase in other contexts.) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just re-read the first sentence of Liber Malorum: "Liber Malorum - Children Of The Apple is the first book by the Australian fool and magician Sean Scullion." So, this seems to me to confirm that any other books by a "Sean Scullion" are by a different writer with the same name. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Hello editors - with all due respect, I have been wondering about this article that I added. The book "Liber Malorum - Children Of The Apple" is a large project containing original works from several authors, some of whom already have WP articles (e.g. Jaq D. Hawkins and Ramsey Dukes). I thought it appropriate to list their latest collaboration (Liber Malorum) on their WP entries which I have done in the bibliography sections of their entries. I also thought it appropriate to write a brief page about the book as I saw other similar books had entries although this is a new release (December 2007). It is published by a Brighton-UK publishing house PagAnarchy Press. Likewise, I felt it appropriate to add an entry for the author of this work but I can see the validity in the claim that some of the entry in unsubstantiated and could be cleaned up with verifiable facts. Chaosplanet (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if you could show somehow that the contributions by the notable authors are original, editors would agree that the Liber Malorum article should be kept. Another ttroublesome charge is that the book is self-published - can we verify from reliable sources whether or not this is the case? Skomorokh ^incite 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the PagAnarchy Press website, there's a scan of the back cover claiming that the notable authors have contributed original material. Is that any use to WP? It seperates original content from 'cameos' lists the pre-published work including William Blake et al. http://www.paganarchy.net/back.php Chaosplanet (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I note the book is listed on lulu.com which is a print-on-demand publisher. This is typically a self-publishing press because the up-front publishing cost is minimal and no requirement for ordering any stock whatsoever. For as little as US$100.00, the book will have an ISBN, bar code and be listed on the major online bookstores: Amazon, Borders, and Barnes and Noble. Pigman☿ 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link: The page for the book on Lulu.com. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question So, Chaos, are you saying that the original content in the book was written by the contributors in the top list, and that any content by the authors listed in the "cameos" section (William Blake, the Principia Discordia, Robert Anton Wilson, Hakim Bey, Timothy Leary, William J. Murray and Donald Tyson) consists only of quotes from pre-published works by those authors (as granted by free use restrictions governing the length that quotes can be before you have to get permission and pay the publishers a fee)? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answer Actually, the copyright holders of Blake, Leary, Murray and Tyson granted free permission to reproduce. The Principia Discordia, and all Hakim Bey texts are in the public domain already so no permission is required to reproduce. The copyright holder of the Robert Anton Wilson text (from the Illuminatus Trilogy) charged a fee for permission to reproduce and this fee has been paid by PagAnarchy Press to the Copyright Clearance Centre. I went to the Liber Malorum booklaunch in London and am already a massive fan of this work, which is the reason for the initial article. However, I will understand if it is not yet deemed 'notable' and needs to be removed for now. Chaosplanet (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I have come across his pamphlet written for Dragon Environmental Network before. Have found a couple more references (particularly enjoyed the 'fairy-hugging' incident...) and added them to the article, but I'm not completely convinced they prove notability. Would suggest merging the Liber Malorum article into this one, if it is kept. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Arts and entertainment taskforce in WikiProject Biography has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Occult has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found the author Sean Scullion's blog. It is at http://paganarchy.net/blogs/sean.php - I do not know if this will affect the decision as to whether or not to keep the pages up. I certainly think the book page should stay up even if the author page does not. Chaosplanet (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the blog posts again confirm that the author's only book is self-published. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:05, 9 January 2008 (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.