This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J.smith (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 22 January 2007 (→[]: merge & rd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:10, 22 January 2007 by J.smith (talk | contribs) (→[]: merge & rd)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Jane Dark
Non notable journalist Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Should be merged to, you know, the person's real name, but this merge was undone by Badlydrawnjeff, who is clearly not stalking my contributions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Keep voters unable to verify existance of this non-existant person. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- False. The external links clearly show existence of someone writing as "Jane Dark." --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- A pen name is not a person. Is the article about a person or a pen name. Unverifiable information is worse than irrelevant information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- So let's decide that and move forward, shall we? Neither one is unverifiable, from the looks of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- A pen name is not a person. Is the article about a person or a pen name. Unverifiable information is worse than irrelevant information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- False. The external links clearly show existence of someone writing as "Jane Dark." --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how a journalist for the Village Voice can be non-"notable." Perfect example of why WP:BIO has/needs "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You withdraw an AfD as a merge and I'm stalking you? Please. Meanwhile, we have one person claiming Jane Dark is Joshua Clover without evidence or a reason as to why the two should be merged together, and two people thinking it should be kept. Sorry, not thinking a merge is the right move here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Journalist works for notable pub, is quoted and linked to. IronDuke 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge--Jane Dark is a pen name of Joshua Clover.-Cindery
- Merge Cindery is correct--Dacium 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The citation in the Jane Dark article--the book Passing explains that Dark is Clover's pen name. At the JC article, under external links--the Academy of American Poets profile-- it states that Jane Dark's Sugarhigh! is Clover's blog.-Cindery 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well...it could be kept as an article, but not as a bio. Are there any other stand-alone articles for a pen name or pseudonym? I haven't seen any. I will recuse myself from further discussion because I don't really understand AfD.-Cindery 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- We're not consistent. A.N. Roquelaure is a redirect, Richard Bachman is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well...it could be kept as an article, but not as a bio. Are there any other stand-alone articles for a pen name or pseudonym? I haven't seen any. I will recuse myself from further discussion because I don't really understand AfD.-Cindery 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The citation in the Jane Dark article--the book Passing explains that Dark is Clover's pen name. At the JC article, under external links--the Academy of American Poets profile-- it states that Jane Dark's Sugarhigh! is Clover's blog.-Cindery 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- So why merge? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep any verifiable content but Merge & Redirect it to Joshua Clover. Typically we merge this kind of thing until the parent article (in this case Joshua Clover) gets too big and needs to be split. In the meantime I don't think we can show that this pen-name is notable on it's own (ie, no books/articles written about the pen-name) to justify an article on it. (If we want to debate the notability of Joshua Clover then that article would need to be nominated separately). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)