User talk:Zombieapocalypsenow

Welcome!

Hello, Zombieapocalypsenow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tooth and Nail (novel by Craig DiLouie), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! IslandGyrl (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tooth and Nail (novel by Craig DiLouie)

The article Tooth and Nail (novel by Craig DiLouie) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not meet criteria for book notability (WP:NB)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IslandGyrl (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 07:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Craig DiLouie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig DiLouie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig DiLouie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely since the only purpose of this account based on the contribution history is to promote the subject Craig DiLouie. Please review the relevant policy in regards to paid-contribution disclosure; for instructions on how to disclose your conflict of interest, please see here. To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, when it comes to getting a writer into Wikipedia, the make or break condition is not what the article does or doesn't say — it's how well the article does or doesn't reference what it says to reliable source coverage in media.

"Creating a notable body of work", for example, is not a condition that a writer can pass just because the article says he's created a notable body of work — if saying that were all it took, then every writer who exists at all could simply say that, even if their body of work really just consisted of one submission to a high school poetry contest, and thereby game the system. Rather, it's the volume of media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the writer and his body of work (e.g. major critical analysis, news coverage, etc.) that tells us whether his body of work is notable or not. Similarly, winning or being nominated for a notable literary award does not automatically extend to every literary award that exists — the extent to which media do or don't report that award's nomination and winner announcements as news is what tells us whether or not that award is notable enough to get a writer past that notability criterion. Either way, it's not the statement of passing an WP:AUTHOR criterion that gets a writer over WP:AUTHOR — it's the degree to which the statement can be referenced to media coverage about their passage of a WP:AUTHOR criterion that gets a writer over WP:AUTHOR.

As well, you've stated in several places that you were writing the article about yourself. So you'll need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, under which editors should not start articles about themselves at all. We are WP:NOTLINKEDIN: our role here is to look at and summarize media coverage, not to give an article to everybody who wants to place themselves on here. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, thank you for this explanation. I have to say I remain unsettled by the entire experience. A Wikipedia page doesn't do anything to promote me unless somebody is already looking for me; I just considered it a point of professional pride that my work had reached a level of notability I believed it warranted a factual page, based on similar pages covering other authors. I felt I complied with the literal wording of the notability standard, as my work is published by major publishers and widely reviewed, and I offered these citations from publications such as Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, though that offer went ignored. I also changed existing citations to comply with your editorial request. Additionally, in compliance with Wikipedia rules, I tried to engage in a dialogue about any issues with the page, was respectful, disclosed to you as another editor I had written the page about myself, and in the first place developed the page about myself, which is "strongly discouraged," I've since learned, but not forbidden. In response, my page was deleted, account blocked, every communication seeking help resulted in further action taken against me, and every reference to me as an author in various lists was scrubbed, as if suddenly I am no longer factually a published author. Count me as "strongly discouraged"! It was an upsetting experience for me, resulting from my naivete, but I'm happy to let the whole thing go and wish you well, it's not important, and for my part, I apologize for any inconvenience or misreading of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.178.117 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]