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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hemmingson[edit]

Michael Hemmingson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional page for a subject that fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability tests. Creator and primary editor has only contributed to this and a handful of related articles. Vast sections have no references, particularly those that describe alleged contributions to music, theater, journalism, academia, and literature. I have not been able to find any independent sources for these claims, or any sources whatsoever beyond a handful of blogs. The extensive "Bibliography" appears to be entirely self-published works. TJ Black (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article should be referenced and cleaned up more (something people can work on), but the extensive biography is definitely not self-published and that is easy to research (I looked at 2 online book sellers and ebay and saw plenty of Hemmingson books). Several of the publishers are on Wikipedia, and I added links to some of them. Many of them are imprints of major publishers (Tor and Forge are Tom Doherty imprints, Carroll & Graf was an Avalon imprint that was purchased by the Perseus Books Group -- which also owns Blue Moon Books (forgot to link) and Thunder's Mouth Press, Gotham Books is a Penguin Books imprint). At the very least, Carroll & Graf and Tor Books immediately leapt out at me as big and memorable. Last year William Vollmann came through town on a book reading/signing tour, at a major bookstore, and one of the books included for purchasing and signing was the William T. Vollmann Reader. It was a nice looking book. If I have time later I'll see if I can reorganise the somewhat confusing bibliography. Madamecp (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever TJ Black is, he/she doesn't know how to research on the Internet very well. This entity claims the subject's books are self-published when in fact none of them are -- take for instance publishers Soft Skull Press, Black Lawrence Press, Tor/Forge Books, Carroll & Graf, to name a few, all of which have an extensive business history. It appears that TJ Black is vetting off a personal vendetta against the subject, perhaps in sex-work research and literature, and personal attacks on a subject's wiki page that lack professional acumen are not for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worfpoe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Worfpoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He has a new book out with Don Webb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherednerd (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Higherednerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. This page should be kept up. It only takes a cursory glance at the publisher names to see that this is far from some self-publisher listing every 10 page booklet he's ran off on the copier at work. Mr. Hemmingson's inclusion is very justified for both his critical and editorial work as well as his fiction writing. Just looking at Amazon shows that many new books could be added to his bibliography as well. Byoung67 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - First of all, comments about my motives for nominating this article are inappropriate and potentially a failure to assume good faith. Secondly, it does appear that I was too broad in claiming the bibliography was "entirely self-published", so I apologize for that and have struck that comment. I will, however note that there is a difference between self-publishing and "listing every 10 page booklet he's ran off on the copier". Many small press publishers do engage in vanity publishing, but there's no way to determine if that's the case here. But even if some of these works are found to be notable (none currently have wikipedia articles, though the Vollman reader is a possible candidate) then that notability does not transfer automatically to this subject. I'll also note that being listed on Amazon is NOT sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NBOOK. Nor is notability transferred through association with other notable individuals.

However, self-publication is not the central point of the nomination. It was, in fact, a pretty minor point. None of the responses so far have offered an argument as to how this individual satisfies any relevant guideline: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE being the most relevant. I'd suggest that the editors who feel this subject is notable focus on explaining how one of those guidelines are satisfied and improving the article so that notability is clear. Currently, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources and the article on the surface appears to be highly promotional. TJ Black (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article needs secondary sources. Right now, the only reliable source I see in the article is this trivial listing, which to me does not establish notability of the writer. Part of the challenge here is that the subject is a prolific writer, which makes finding sources about rather than by him a little more challenging. Some of the editors that have commented on here may want to review the guide to deletion discussions and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to help insure that they are effective in communicating their opinions to the closing admin. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for his archived list of articles (plus the dates) in the San Diego Reader, next to the one for his staff bio there. It's a long 5 year list, if anyone feels like reading articles for more references. I also added one for the most recent San Diego Book Awards finalist nomination. At which point I noticed I was making mistakes, and am therefore calling it a night. Madamecp (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How does being a reporter for a local paper or being nominated for a local award establish notability? These are good references to add in case the article is kept, but they don't address the concerns about notability. TJ Black (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with the biography is that it lacks sufficient references. Therefore it's not a bad idea to add references for anything there that doesn't already have them. Madamecp (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs reliable secondary sources. I think TJ's question was why you are bringing up addition of more primary sources at the deletion discussion? VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Opinion is weak for me because the subject approaches criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR, since some of his work appears to have received third-party reviews. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Still voting to Keep) I added a third party reference article about one of his plays at the Fritz Theatre. Third party reviews are easy enough. There's a handful from Review of Contemporary Fiction, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist archived at access my library. I also found one written by Ellen Datlow in The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror (1995). He has 3,100 entries on Google Books, and I don't think all of them are by him (if anyone is brave enough to look for things about him in such a long list). As far as no books having their own pages (mentioned way up this page), both of the Mammoth Books he edited (Mammoth anthologies are huge, and several already have wikipedia pages -- some under US names eg The Year's Best Science Fiction and Horror) and likely the Vollmann Reader should qualify. Maybe also the Avant-Porn anthology (there is a review by Lidia Yuknavitch in the contents of American Book Review, but no on-line archive). All 4 of those would establish him as an editor rather than a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamecp (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your keep vote above to help a closing admin see it. I agree that there are some local reviews of some of Hemmingson's work, but I have not seen any about him. Per the guideline for creative professionals listed above, the author/editor may not be notable enough for their own article, even if some of their works are notable. The playbill article you posted is better than some since it does talk about the subject for a paragraph or two, but the coverage of him is still pretty trivial. Thanks for your ongoing work on this! VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the format help. I normally remember to tilde my messages, but I'm tired and airheaded. I'll look for more references as soon as I feel like I have 1/4 of a brain. Um... the next person's post has line breaks. I'll fix it. Shouldn't it be Keep instead of Don't Delete, or does it not matter? Madamecp (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete Michael Hemmingson is a well known and controversial writer in a variety of genres. I have read more of his extreme horror than his other types of fiction and non-fiction, but I have read a lot about his other books. He has been in a lot of magazines and anthologies over the years and has a solid reputation as a critic of literature and culture. He has also edited anthologies, including at least one controversial one. James65.pike (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT. Has he been written about in secondary sources? VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first learned about him back in the 90's. He was mentioned in several magazines at the time. I no longer have any of these magazines as my ex-wife threw all my old stuff in the trash (and that was when she liked me). I will look to see if I can find any current stuff but it will take some time since I've been busy lately. In the mean time, please don't delete the page. It was refreshing to see one of my favorite authors listed in wikipedia and disappointing to see it marked for deletion. James65.pike (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments and references that I thought might help. I'm looking for more. James65.pike (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For anyone who is looking for sources, I wanted to note that I reorganised and cleaned up (fixed some mistakes, added some ISBNs, removed non-links) the bibliography. I couldn't look at the previous version without my brain falling into a coma, so hopefully it'll help other people as well. Madamecp (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more play references, at least one was a secondary source. I added appearances in a few anthologies from major publishers (because they are picky about who to print) that have excerpts on Google Books (proves he's in there, anyway). I added something by Larry McCaffery (estemeed literary academic and critic) that I think is the preface for the Avant-Porn anthology (at the least it's something by McCaffery that is an archive of his writings at spinelessbooks) to the External Links. I put it there because I wasn't sure what it would reference, unless the biography stated something about Hemmingson being nutty and needed a liability guard. Someone else added interviews to the Links, I haven't looked at them yet. And someone added more reviews. He's all over the place in blogs, but those can't be used. I'm going to be busy with life for a while, good luck to anyone else who is trying. Oh, and I'm moving Foreign Correspondence to Publishing History because it doesn't look big enough for its own section. Correct me if I'm wrong. Madamecp (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Madamecp (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks, Madamecp. I found a few Pipe targets for some of the red links, and unlinked the rest. Found a source or two while cleaning the citations. Anarchangel (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (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.