Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Slatter

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. LFaraone 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Slatter

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe the author qualifies under WP:BIO, specifically "# The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Five Australian Science Fiction Award nominations. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please let me know who you believe an expert in the field to be and I will get an answer from them. Suffice to say that the Ditmar and the Aurealis Awards are the two most important and respected Australian SF Achievement Awards. These awards are archived on Locus - a recognised source. How much more proof do you need? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Locus http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html "The Ditmar Awards are the Australian equivalent of the Hugos, given by members of the Australian National Science Fiction Convention for professional and fan works by Australians." These have been awarded since 1969.
http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Aurealis.html The Aurealis Awards are given to works of SF, fantasy, and horror by Australians. They differ from the Ditmar Awards by including young adult categories, omitting fan categories, and by being judged--in fact, there are separate judges for each division. These have been awarded since 1996.
  • Comment – The point I was trying to make was I am unfamiliar with the Australian awards listed. If you are saying they are adequate then, I can only assume they are. Assuming as such, the article will most likely survive the AfD.
  • Comment The Aurealis and the Ditmar are the two highest achievement awards that may be given for a piece of work in the Australian SF community. They both have international recognition, and the nominees and winners are reported widely in SF publications all over the world. There are even wikipedia pages for these awards, so I would assume that this means the awards have satisfied wikipedia's standards for notability.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditmar and Aurealis awards might be important and respected, but according to the article Slatter didn't win them. She was nominated for one, "shortlisted" for the other. That plus some dust-jacket blurb is the best that seems to be on offer. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BIO states "or has been nominated for one several times". Five nominations for two sets of national awards is more than several, satisfying the criteria (it appears your objection relates more to the evidence required to satisfy the criteria). I would also ask if you have any experience in either the Australian Science Fiction community or the publishing/library industry, to determine whether you are suitable to judge the notability of reviews (including starred reviews) in Publishers Weekly. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also believe that the author does qualify under WP:CREATIVE, specifically "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." Numerous independent reviews of her work, including two reviews in Publishers Weekly, one of those being a starred review. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respect your right to hold an opinion and voice your opinion. In this case, I am seeking to ascertain what additional material I can produce to sway your opinion. Angela Slatter is a well respected and notable writer in the Australian SF community. As such I seek your help in demonstrating this so that she can be recognised in Wikipedia. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do not see a significant body of work. What work is well known? How has her work been the subject "of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Reviews of her first collection, Sourdough and other stories

Reviews of her second collection, The Girl With no Hands and other tales

These are only a selection of the reviews out there in independent periodicals. i can provide more if you request. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see later comments) - No reliable secondary sources are provided in the article - they are all self published or blogs. One is even a deadlink to a facebook page. Punkrocker, thanks for providing the sources above, but I do not believe these qualify as reliable sources. They simply appear to be blogs without editorial oversight. At least one of them is signed "Punkrocker1991". Producing expert opinions in itself is not going to help, unless said opinion has been reported in a reliable source. Publishers Weekly might get close, but I don't know if they are notable, and more to the point, I can't verify their review exists. Other acceptable "evidence" would be a review in a major magazine or newspaper, or some other demonstration that the work is of major importance. It fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG at the moment, and a quick google search doesn't produce anything better than that mentioned above. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Ditmar and Aurealis Awards are notable award nominations for an Australian science fiction author and it appears as though Slatter's work has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. This meets WP:CREATIVE. - Outcast44 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, she didn't win these awards. And CREATIVE (which is the same as AUTHOR) requires a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews. A short story or stories being mentioned in an article coverering a bunch of different authors doesn't meet that standard. EEng (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned above, the criteria isn't only about winning, it is also about multiple nomination. She has fulfilled this criteria. She has had two books published, both were reviewed in Publishers Weekly. Combined with the other reviews, this fulfills the "collective body of work". Right now, i can go to all of the major online bookstores, and purchase two titles written by Slatter. Both publications are from award-winning independent publishers, and are not self published. One title, Sourdough and other stories features an introduction written by World Fantasy Award-winning writer Robert Shearman (who has also written for Dr Who). Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does Slatter not meet WP:CREATIVE when she has received five national award nominations and multiple reviews in established publications such as The Australian and Publishers Weekly for two books and several short stories? Several of the reviews listed by Punkrocker1991 are from online sources, but these I see as support for the 'subject of multiple articles or reviews' criteria of WP:CREATIVE. When all is added together, I believe the author's notability is sufficient. Yes, this author is not Mark Twain, John Grisham or Stephen King, but WP:CREATIVE doesn't require that level of notability. Outcast44 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are the full text of the two Publishers Weekly reviews -- as Publishers Weekly has a wikipedia entry can I assume that PW meets the criteria for a notable and reliable source
10/25/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive Sourdough and Other Stories Angela Slatter, Tartarus (www.tartaruspress.com), $50 (238p) ISBN 9781905784257 "Australian author Slatter (Black-Winged Angels) displays a rare gift for evocative and poetic prose in this collection of 16 dark fairy tales featuring characters that will be familiar to readers of the Brothers Grimm, but themes (such as long-simmering vengeance and unnatural death) that push them out of the kids' stuff camp. The knockout short but powerful opener, "The Shadow Tree," about a royal servant's response to the cruelty of the king's teenage children, climaxes with a chilling resolution. And "Little Radish" neatly tweaks the well-known tale of Rapunzel. Yet Slatter doesn't always rely on the creations of others for her ideas, as the title story, with its baker narrator, amply demonstrates. She has a knack for crafting opening lines that almost hypnotically draw the reader in ("The sight of the inn picks at the stitches of my memory. The splintered shingle, emblazoned with a faded golden lily, swings in the breeze"). Her considerable talent should translate well to the novel-length fantasy she's currently working on. (Sept. Starred Review)"
09/13/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive The Girl with No Hands (and Other Tales) Angela Slatter, Ticonderoga (www.indiebooksonline.com), $22.50 (210p) ISBN 9780980628883 "In this collection of 16 previously published and new stories, Slatter presents twisted, fractured, illuminating fairy tales and dark fantasies that beguile in their elegant simplicity. Many of the stories are reiterations of classic fairy tales from all over the world. But by retelling the tales in a more intimate manner, Slatter illuminates the symbiotic relationship between pleasure and pain. The sexually candid "Bluebeard" is an empowering tale of a whore and her daughter who best a monster. The wholly original "The Living Book" personifies the intimate act of reading, while "Skin" reworks the Gaelic legend of the selkie into a tale of revenge and redemption from the seal woman's perspective. An afterword elucidates the source material and intent behind each tale. Dark and sinister, these shorts place strong, empathetic female protagonists into harrowing, horrifying, or humble circumstances and see them triumph. (Aug.)" Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Having a Wikipedia article is not a guarantee that the subject is a reliable secondary source. 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I ask then what is a reliable secondary source? I am beginning to feel frustrated at trying to meet ever-changing arbitrary standards. You may also wish to know that SF Site won the Locus Award for best SF Website. Does this make the source more reliable? If someone can give me a benchmark I will try to reach this, and if I cannot reach this benchmark I will not oppose the deletion of this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of sources. Please see WP:RS. Can I ask that you please help by following the format of marking your your comments with the Comment title. It makes it easier to read the threads of thoughts. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read that page extensively. Can you please tell me whether Publishers Weekly is a reliable secondary source? Similarly can you please tell me if the SF Site is a reliable source? See below, can you please tell me if The Australian newspaper is a reliable source? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If they meet the criteria in WP:RS they are. If you notice I did not say the articles were not valid sources, I said just because the entity that published the source had an article in Wikipedia, it did not guarantee that it was a valid source for the article. There would be a high probability that anything published in the entity would be, but not a guarantee. ttonyb (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about this review in The Australian newspaper http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/imagination-that-deftly-defies-northern-gravity/story-e6frg8no-1111116985682

"Dreaming Again demonstrates that there is a distinctive Australian voice in speculative fiction, heard in the irreverence and humour of the stories and in the use of Australian landscapes. Indeed, reading this anthology makes it obvious just how much of the best overseas work is derivative of US and British culture and locations. It is a pleasure to see something as out-worldly as science fiction and fantasy writing grounded in our culture and landscapes.

An excellent example is Angela Slatter's The Jacaranda Wife, about a woman born of a jacaranda tree. It weaves together themes of colonisation and indigenous lore on a 4000ha sheep station. It could only have been written here and is one of the best stories in the collection."

Does this add to the argument in favour of this entry? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A review in The Australian - now we're talking. Slatter's mention is brief, but probably more than trivial as required in WP:GNG. I don't think any of the other sources make the grade. It's a pretty thin basis for notability, but it might just get it over the line. Thoughts?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, (see below) WP:AUTHOR: 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. Also-ran for some awards? Phrase-length mention in review of an anthology? No, sorry. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Two phrase length reviews singling out her work in a 35-story anthology seems to satisfy this criteria. "Some awards"? These are internationally recognised national awards. A bit like calling The World Series "some baseball game". Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. My understanding is that a trivial mention would be along the lines of, "Dreaming Again features stories by a, b, c, Angela Slatter, d, x, y and z". To have a story singled out for description and praise in a review of a 35-story anthology, in a major newspaper, where not all stories are mentioned, is non-trivial. To have this same story mentioned and singled out in two such reviews (by different reviewers) surely carries some weight to satisfying the criteria. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, an argument could be made that such critique is "non-trivial", but it's still not a strong basis for notability, particularly in light of the fact that there are no reliable sources that deal with her work exclusively. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) Significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has (b) been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We need some work of hers (an individual story) which is significant or well-known, and which has been the subject of [etc]; or we need a review of her collective body of work. But these are just the usual positive mentions of early, individual pieces by promising writer: "haunting...climax truly sinister...beautiful imagery...otherworldly...strangely touching." No comment on "collective body of work." That her story was mentioned, where at least some of the 35 others weren't, only tells us that it was not the least remarkable among them. And finally, no one's minimizing the significance of the awards: it's just that she did not win them. EEng (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I registered at PW so I could read the reviews. They're a couple of short staff-written pieces along the lines EEng mentions above. Certainly no widespread recognition at this stage. Apparently she has a full-length novel coming up. If that turns out to be a bestseller, then there's nothing to stop the article being recreated, but I don't think she quite gets there at this stage.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) see revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bother? Lost among the Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment maze above is the full text of both. Total: 300 words. Give it up. EEng (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up I give up. It is obvious that wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Austraian writers. Had I known that wikipedia was a place where only writers like John Grisham, Barbara Cartland and Jeffrey Archer were notable, I wouldn't have bothered. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in a bad mood lately and apologize for my harshness. On the otherhand, a statement such as "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers"... c'mon, do you real feel that anti-Australian bias is at work here? Or is it just annoyance that you keep pushing this marginal case? Ms. Slatter seems to be a very promising writer. As already noted, why not wait a bit until her smash best-seller comes out to rave reviews -- then notability will be manifest. EEng (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel an anti-Australian bias here, as both sets of our national SF awards have been repeatedly denigrated. Maybe it's not anti-Australian, maybe the bias is just non-US. Slatter is a well known and respected writer in the Australian SF community, and I have tried to convey this. If only bestsellers qualify, you might as well delete this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Let's all step back and take a deep breath. I feel better. Now, let's all remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort of volunteers to provide the definitive online encyclopedia. All editors must abide by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, what I am seeing is a blurring of those basic tenets of Wikipedia. Number one, Wikipedia is not a place for bias against or in favor of any subject/topic. It is place that encourages intellectual discussion, but never bias. If there is suspected bias, the editor that feels slighted should discuss it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or other appropriate venue. I have looked and I do not see a statement that says, "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers", I do see a lot of discussion that indicates a lack of support for the writer in question and a lot of back and forth comments. For goodness sake, there will always be disagreement in AfDs. Let's all try to keep the discussion focused on the AfD and not the appropriateness of logging into a site that might provide support for the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks for pointing me in the direction of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have now logged this as the failure to recognise national Australian SF Awards can create a element of bias against Australian writers. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think that's necessary. I'm Australian for starters. See my revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had something of a change of heart. To paraphrase Punkrocker, if only bestsellers qualify, we might as well give up on Wikipedia entirely. Let's bring it back to the core of Wikipedia - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The simple fact of the matter is that Slatter passes the GNG. Barely, but she does. As long as the article is verifiable (tick), original research is avoided (tick), and the article is not spammy or crystal-bally (tick), the benefit of the doubt simply must rest with inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - WP:AUTHOR and its ilk are merely guidelines, and flawed ones at that, since if they were followed we would indeed have bestsellers and nothing else. Bandwidth is plentiful. Keep. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Although this is probably not the place for this, thanks to all that took a step back to reassess their positions on the article and those that just took a deep breath. My best to all and I look forward to editing with everyone here on future articles. ttonyb (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This author is obviously notable. A multiple-time finalist for one of the world's major SF awards? Several books published or coming out from notable presses? A large number of stories in magazines which are of note? I don't see how anyone can say this author isn't notable. To state otherwise is to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and precedent.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had she won an Aurealis Award or a Ditmar there wouldn't be too much doubt, although the nominations - especially for the Aurealis Award - do speak to notability. (I know both awards - the Ditmars are fan-based awards, as per the larger Hugos, but they are the major SF fan award in Australia, with the fiction categories being well regarded within the community; while the Aurealis Awards are jury based and are also well regarded). However, the two interviews in Clarkesworld Magazine, (one as one of several upcoming authors,[1] one in her own right[2]), and reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly, SF Site, and by Jeff Vandermeer are, I think, sufficient. Anyway, there's enough to meet the GNG, I think, with the two interviews and other material, so when combined with the nominations and reviews I'm pretty comfortable with the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Quoting from my own comment over at the absurd ANI thread mentioned above: It's beginning to look like the subject might be notable after all. Too bad Punkrocker didn't spend less time complaining about imaginged disrespect, and more time reading policies and guidelines (on notability likely, and on opening an ANI thread for sure!) and marshalled the evidence systematically and clearly in the first place. EEng (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked through this article and find virtually no information about the author's work. I now have a dream that her works be judged not by the color of their reviews but by the character of their content. From looking at some reviews found by Google, her stories appear to be in the horror and fantasy genres, but the only occurrences of either of these words are in the titles of award nominations, not the article text itself. In the whole article only two sentences mention her literary style or a story summary and one of those is a direct quote from a reference which is entirely acceptable as part of an article but not as 50% of the substantial content. I accept that a stub may require significant additions and still be kept, but my concern is that if there were currently more relevant and interesting potential content supported by reliable sources, the knowledgeable and enthusiastic main author would already have used it. Most of the current references are an attempt to support the existence of the article, rather than supporting originally written content discussing the author's output in any detail. Nothing against the reappearance of this article once there is better referenced content available. --Mirokado (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's possibly the case. However, it's not really a core issue here: COI doesn't stop you from working on articles, and the main question for AfD is whether or not the subject meets the notability requirements. Potential POV is something best addressed on the article's talk page. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly is too weak a word. "Core issue" or not, Punkrocker's activities represent a grotesque waste of everyone's time in pursuit of (at best) his own vanity and (at worst) lucre. Here's Punkrocker1991's...
  • ...self-description as an "SF editor": [3];
  • ...upload of a file (logo for Ticonderoga Publications) described as "Source: I [name] created this work entirely by myself.... Author:Punkrocker1991";
Note: I just realized that my original post was missing the link to the upload; here it is: [4]
  • ...creation of what appears to be an article on himself, in which the subject is described as "editor of Ticonderoga Publications" and (surprise!) winner of "2 Ditmar Awards and 1 Aurealis Award" [5]; and
  • ...edit history showing edits of articles on Ticonderoga and the authors it publishes [6].
Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. -- Logan Pearsall Smith.
Care to explain, Punkrocker? EEng (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • you need to be careful in how ou approach this - there is a important distinction between discussing a COI and outing. That said, it isn't the issue here - COI is a problem because it can lead to a strong POV in an article, but for AFD the question isn't POV, but notability. You might want to take this up in the editor's talk page or on WP:COIN. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the warning, but per WP:OUTING (my italics),
Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia...If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.
A lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to educate what appeared to be simply an inexperienced editor who, as new editors often do, merely failed to realize the extent to which Wikipedia policies and terminology don't comport with what a newcomer would expect. Now we find that all the crying about denigration of Australian awards and so on was just his own sore ego, and his activity here look suspiciously like an attempt to boost sales of his own product. He's made his own bed, and he'll have to lie in it. I've posted COI notices on the various articles he's edited about authors his firm publishes. For now I'll wait for someone else to raise the issue at COIN. Anyway, we're still waiting to see what Punkrocker has to say for himself. EEng (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place for the discussion, but my concern was that you're connecting an on-wiki pseudonym with an off-wiki pseudonym to then draw a connection, not stated directly in either place, with the editor's name. The first step shows possible COI, so it is sufficient. Going further than that, when the editor hasn't self-identified, is a problem. The conflict between COI and outing is an ongoing concern, but in this case we can handle one without the other. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was another editor who googled the word punkrocker1991 out in the greater web. Look again at the links I gave above, in particular the file upload, in which Punkrocker1991 did self-identify, by name, that name being a founder of Ticonderoga Publications which publishes Slatter. The COI question is apropos here -- Slatter's publisher, with a financial interest in securing an article on her, should not have participated, or at the very least should have done so very gingerly and with full disclosure. So, Punkrocker1991, are you or are you not the person you said you were in that upload? (P.S. to Bilby -- thanks for reviewing the COI question in the various articles I tagged -- I was in no mood to make an impartial review of the individual edits.) EEng (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I said below, I do not believe that any COI issues are relevant to the AfD discussion here and I am willing and happy to discuss these at my talk page. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not relevant (directly) to the question of Slatter's notability, but it certainly is relevant to your participation in this discussion. From WP:COI:
Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest....Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion....[I]f you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
  • Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  • Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors...
If what you said elsewhere on Wikipedia [7] -- that you are Angela Slatter's editor and publisher -- isn't actually true,why don't you just say so now? EEng (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree with what Bilby has said in that any assumed COI issues are not relevant to this discussion and I am more than happy to discuss these at my talk page. I would also remind everyone of wikipedias principle of assuming good faith and also the guidelines that can be found here WP:HOUND. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see what WP:HOUND has to do with this particular discussion: there is an "overriding reason" for the affected articles having been tagged, if there are other wider issues the search for a remedy lies elsewhere. A conflict of interest can exist independent of any intention to profit from it, so any concerns do not automatically imply lack of good faith. They do however mean that possibly uncomfortable questions may need to be asked. Please can you explain why the article as written so far provides an ISBN number for only one of her published books? (There is a reason why I decided not to add the other one while reviewing the article content, but I'd like to hear your reason for not including it.) --Mirokado (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AnswerAt the time I created the article, i had only the ISBN to The Girl With No Hands available in a convenient ___location. Upon your drawing my attention to the ommission of the ISBN for Sourdough I have now added this. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the prompt (and good-natured) answer. (My reason for not adding it was that it seems only available in an edition limited to 300 copies and I was hoping there would also be another edition that I had missed.) --Mirokado (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Slatter&oldid=1069105293"