Talk:Joe Clifford

I, the creator of this page, hereby attest that I am not Joe Clifford (or a member of his family) and that this is not an autobiography. As a reader of Clifford's work, I believe that he and his books are entitled to this form of recognition. I plan to remove the proposal for deletion tag as soon as the support is deemed adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory1262 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Rory1262. How great of you to write a Wikipedia for your favorite autor! Let me however remind you that your devotion are (unfortunately!) not sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. We have rules about what may be in here and not. Please have a look at WP:Author for this particular case. You may also be interested in WP:Notability and WP:Not.

In other news, I recommend that you do not remove the deletion tag yourself. Although you are free to do so according to the relevant rules which you can read here, I'd recommend that you let some other wikipedian check the article over and remove it. That way, you can be certain that the page does not risk deletion discussion again. Just some friendly advice! :)

And one more thing. Whenever you write on talk pages, always add "~~~~" at the end of your comments, so that everyone will know it is you. Also, put all your comments on the bottom of the page, or the bottom of the section you are commenting on. See more at Help:Talk pages. Gaioa (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I will indeed look at WP:Author, thanks. I expect that it should provide guidance for me to offer additional adequate support. Please note also that while Mr. Clifford is an author I respect, he is not necessarily my favorite author. I do not intend to remove the deletion tag; rather, I will get the article to the point it needs to be. Rory1262 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I like to hear! Instead of removing the deletion tag for disagreeing, you improve the article to make it irrelevant. I wish I saw more people do like you!

And one more thing about talk pages. Try to remember to indent your replies so that everyone knows who you are talking to. As on this page, where I have put colons in the beginning of paragraphs. That creates the smooth-looking indent you see now :) Gaioa (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I intend to demonstrate that Mr. Clifford is notable because he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of each other and the subject.

As the notability standard states, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below" (as for WP:AUTHOR). Rory1262 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know if this now meets the basic notability criteria. Rory1262 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As for notability, it looks good now. I have personally removed the deletion template. I have also improved formatting and added headings.
Now, please make sure to put all those sources into what we call "inline citations" so that readers will understand who says what. The process of inline citations is a pain in the ***, I know, but it needs to be done.
Also, the claims of writing style and addiction influence needs to say who consideres that, i.e. which source says that his addiction formed his writing carreer? Reflect that these claims are always subjective.
A pleasure working with you! :) Gaioa (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Can/will do. Thank you. I am glad that the main obstacle has been cleared. Rory1262 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added citations. Please let me know if there's a cleaner way to present the notes and references with less overlap. Rory1262 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the article looks good now, great job. However, I am not the kind of Wikipedian that checks references, so I'm gonna have to trust you until some other patroller checks it. That said, I'm gonna let this article go now and consider it good enough for not worrying.
And, thanks for cooperating with me in this article, Rory! I usually only patrol new changes, so this was a nice change :) Gaioa (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless some reasoning behind the tag questioning neutrality emerges soon, I intend to remove it in another two weeks. Rory1262 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The article as it stands is the sort of thing publishers put out as PR. given your connection to the subject you are not the one to make the call. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a reader of Mr. Clifford's work. That's my "connection" -- please support your conjecture. Note also that I have taken pains to keep the tone restrained, not fan-like. I will, however, not take action on my own. I'll look to gather some other impartial input. Rory1262 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue on neutrality, insofar as the first paragraph does cross-reference a number of articles to news sources that aren't "fanzine" sources, but general-purpose publications (e.g., LA Weekly, SF Chronicle), and there are other external links to independent sources such as a Connecticut television station. It's certainly not PR-flack handout material The independent sources probably give the article sufficient neutrality to warrant removing the tag.Eric O. Costello (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)