493:
work on the Lit section because maybe he felt I had a passion for the written word, who knows. And obscure lit reviews? HA please, they are probably the only reviews in
Literature today that aren't bought and paid for. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. You guys make me laugh. And why wouldn't I print the reviews on my website. Hey maybe I should put blurbs on the back of the book too, damn author trying to give a perspective reader an idea what the book is about. What could I be thinking? (for you slow people this is called sarcasm.) Now as far as my validity of being in Knowledge (XXG), let me ask is Marc Spitz or Jame Frey (what a piece of crap that was) in here or the author of "twelve" (one of the worst books ever written to get "big" time reviews that were complimentry. Again I don't mind that I might be up for deletion, but please when you make an argument for deletion, please make it valid and speak of something you know about. If any of you would like to trade literary blows please let me know.
492:
Why? If I am involved why would it go more toward "vanity-spam". As far as I am concerned if the article is to be in
Wikeipedia then it should be correct is all. And to be accurate the review of "Killing Molly" came months before my work at thedetroiter.com, the editor in chief called me and asked to
358:
but in the AfDs the mobbing can also work the other way--once the consensus seems to shift, people come and agree with it, though they may not have contributed much to the actual discussion. --just compare the beginning of any long AfD with the end. It would, however, not be in the traditional spirit
138:
Killing Molly does exist as a publication. It is currently a literary property under development with a
Detroit film production company called Thought Collide. The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling
463:
References so far are unconvincing/insubstantial. Knowledge (XXG) is not a free publicity and advertising platform. We need significant, reliable evidence of encyclopedic notability. So far we have a local newspaper event promotion article of uncertain significance, a review from a website which Mr.
311:
Much valuable literature is published without an ISBN or a
Library of Congress call number. I wonder if Abby Hoffman's 'Steal this Book' had an ISBN number at first. Why should the Knowledge (XXG) be bound by the decision of the board that issues ISBN or Library of Congress's call numbers as a gauge
418:
cites five reviews of his book, but we need a better reference resourse than the author's website. Can someone verify any of these sources? Maybe a rewrite of the text would make the article more appealing. It's not improper grammer, but it just doesn't work for me. This could be a keeper with
308:
I read 1000 copies in a guideline. It's a good number; some limited editions of undoubtable notability are published in lower numbers. The guidelines you mention are proposed guidelines, as you say. Until these proposed guidelines go into effect, kindly adjudicate by the ones that are current. Any
455:
Ah. I would like to point out that I never self styled myself as the "Bad Boy of
Literature" that was a given nickname from Living for Sundance Group and Thought Collide Films and members of Detroit Synergy. Also I appreciate the debate on if I should or should not be in Knowledge (XXG). If the
344:
One of my greatest complaints about this adjudicative process is the process starts to resemble a mob far too quickly. More, it seems I've rarely found bulls wasting time participating in these put-down sessions. The article for deletion process seems to attract a bearish kind of person, most
139:
1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music. I understand the difficulty of verifying all of this independently from where you are executing your wikipedia duties. Not a hoax. Nowak is a keep, and the
Killing Molly article will be reposted with easier aids for verification.
467:, and a couple of small reviews in obscure publications of uncertain reliability and significance printed on the book's own website . And yes, the title "Bad Boy of Literature" needs referencing as well if its claimed that his fans call him that rather than it being self-styled.
419:
some help. I do agree with the author that too frequently the AfD looks like a mob, at first blush, but if you fix your article and recontact the mobsters you will find that each of them is a thoughtful and understanding person who will reconsider. Good luck! --
167:"The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music"? No! Please see the proposed guideline
390:- despite the comments of Wmjuntunen, wikipedia is not the place for things that are not currently notable but might be in the future; in particular, it is not the place to increase the appearance of notability to further that agenda.-
316:
Saying that "Self-styled as The Bad Boy of
Literature" is the saddest thing you've read on Knowledge (XXG) is an unusual statement. Many authors self-style themselves one or another monicker. Heck, one of the fine points of
321:
is the way he self-styled himself, especially when preparing for a prize-fight. Any one who follows publishing knows that many authors self-publish and self-promote books. The latest example is
128:, and I was the one who initiated its deletion process. If this person's work was worth being deleted here because it is not notable, then this person is probably not notable enough to be here.
378:
These deletions only delete the article but does not prevent you to write it again. So if there are more sources (like you said about Amazon) are added on, you can well reinstate the article.
456:
article stays I would appreciate the addition of thedetroiter.com and/or mrbellersneighborhood.com for reference purposes. I have written for both online magazines. Thank you Eric C. Novack
113:
338:
125:
314:
The
Killing Molly article failed a AfD probably because of improper writing of the article, so the book didn't fail an AfD. An article about the book failed an AfD.
504:
The point is not that you are editing your own article, although that is discouraged but not forbidden; the point is the style of your writting. Good Luck! --
359:
of WP to ask that people read the article before voting. The first step might be to automatically delete the comments/vote of anyone who used the word:
195:
The novel he wrote doesn't have an ISBN? Then it's not notable, and he's not notable for having written it as far as
Knowledge (XXG)'s concerned.
345:
irresponsible of all those who write the argot, 'nn'. If you can write full thoughts, do your comments belong in a deliberative process?
86:
81:
17:
90:
309:
reason for the exclamation point on your no? I thought this forum is a learned, genteel discussion, with no need for yelling, 'No!'
73:
168:
527:
36:
399:
299:
479:
With Mr Novak now invloved in the editing it seems to be heading farther into vanity spam. Can't support this. --
526:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
153:
As best as I can tell on Ghits his best (and almost only) claim to fame is the book that has failed a AfD.
508:
483:
471:
449:
436:
423:
406:
382:
369:
349:
301:
279:
267:
251:
227:
211:
199:
187:
157:
143:
132:
55:
77:
292:
248:
69:
61:
121:
334:
Hey, I just checked Amazon. Killing Molly is there ! Did you really chase down any of those ghits?
224:
52:
432:
I rewrote the article, but my ego will not turm "self-styled bad boy" if someone reverts me. --
505:
480:
433:
420:
264:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
445:
I can see the improvement being done, if more sources are added on I would suggest to keep.
288:
260:
236:
172:
346:
276:
140:
180:
402:
244:
240:
176:
415:
326:
318:
154:
107:
468:
465:
196:
184:
446:
379:
208:
129:
391:
464:
Novack is himself involved with as the website's literature section editor
365:
322:
520:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
287:
very short and somewhat promotional article that does not meet
223:
may be one of the saddest things I've read on
Knowledge (XXG).
124:, which was deleted from wikipedia due to non-notability, see
103:
99:
95:
329:
in its self-published, self-promoted, un-ISBN-ed form.
126:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Killing_Molly
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
363:--its just as meaningless as nn (sort of a smile)
416:http://www.elitistpublications.com/km_reviews.htm
530:). No further edits should be made to this page.
337:ISBN-10: 0975407406 and ISBN-13: 978-0975407400
306:To take these objections in turn is important.
336:And Killing Molly has an ISBN Number ----: -->
259:unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w.
275:Self-styled, self-published, self-promoting.
8:
171:and the definitively established guidelines
221:"Self-styled as "The Bad Boy of Literature"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
120:This is the alleged author of novel
169:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
24:
325:, which came to the attention of
1:
509:03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
484:01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
472:01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
450:02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
437:01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
424:01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
407:00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
383:21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
370:07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
350:21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
302:20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
280:19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
268:15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
252:11:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
228:08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
212:04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
200:03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
188:01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
158:01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
144:01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
133:00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
56:03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
547:
523:Please do not modify it.
414:The link at the article
32:Please do not modify it.
412:Research & Rewrite
183:is not notability. --
263:by end of this AfD
295:¤~Persian Poet Gal
405:
538:
525:
398:
396:
111:
93:
48:
34:
546:
545:
541:
540:
539:
537:
536:
535:
534:
528:deletion review
521:
392:
312:of notability.
181:reliable source
84:
68:
65:
46:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
544:
542:
533:
532:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
497:
496:
495:
494:
487:
486:
474:
453:
452:
427:
426:
409:
385:
375:
374:
373:
372:
353:
352:
341:
340:
335:
331:
330:
315:
313:
310:
307:
304:
282:
270:
254:
230:
214:
202:
190:
161:
160:
147:
146:
118:
117:
70:Eric C. Novack
64:
62:Eric C. Novack
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
543:
531:
529:
524:
518:
517:
510:
507:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
478:
475:
473:
470:
466:
462:
459:
458:
457:
451:
448:
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
425:
422:
417:
413:
410:
408:
404:
401:
397:
395:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
376:
371:
368:
367:
362:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
343:
342:
339:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
305:
303:
300:
298:
297:
296:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
274:
271:
269:
266:
262:
258:
255:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
229:
226:
225:janejellyroll
222:
218:
215:
213:
210:
206:
203:
201:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:
145:
142:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
127:
123:
122:Killing Molly
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
53:Mailer Diablo
50:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
522:
519:
506:Kevin Murray
481:Kevin Murray
476:
460:
454:
442:
434:Kevin Murray
429:
428:
421:Kevin Murray
411:
393:
387:
364:
360:
327:Carl Hiassen
319:Cassius Clay
294:
293:
284:
272:
265:Alf photoman
256:
232:
220:
216:
204:
192:
164:
150:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
249:Terence Ong
207:per above.
347:Wmjuntunen
277:NawlinWiki
141:Wmjuntunen
219:as nn.
114:View log
443:Comment
400:*Edits*
165:Delete.
155:Jeepday
87:protect
82:history
477:Delete
469:Bwithh
461:Delete
403:*Talk*
388:Delete
361:per X.
323:Eragon
289:WP:BIO
285:Delete
273:Delete
261:WP:BIO
257:Delete
237:WP:BIO
233:Delete
217:Delete
205:Delete
197:Just H
193:Delete
185:N Shar
179:. One
173:WP:BIO
151:Delete
91:delete
447:Wooyi
380:Wooyi
209:MER-C
130:Wooyi
108:views
100:watch
96:links
49:elete
16:<
430:Note
394:Dmz5
245:WP:V
241:WP:N
177:WP:N
175:and
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
51:. -
366:DGG
112:– (
247:.
243:,
239:,
235:,
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
291:.
116:)
110:)
72:(
47:d
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.