Wikid Exdux

3F093B6A-E2C6-41D1-AA5B-9B916E67274DHaving someone point out to me yesterday that the DF Lewis Wikipedia (first erected by someone else in 2006) has been deleted, I accept this with equanimity. I have already morphed back to Des Lewis, in any event.

Reason given on Wikipedia site:
“He has some coverage in the world of small press publication (blogs and private websites as well as print), and has himself been published extensively in small press and self-published format as well as some stories in anthologies from bigger publishers. But that is not sufficient: there’s a lack of reviews or other critical commentary in reliable sources (which would include newspapers, magazines from major publishers, academic sources, independent websites with a proper editorial structure, etc), no evidence of major awards, and no indication of importance outside of a small, self-regarding world. Nemonymous should also be considered for deletion for its lack of coverage by independent third parties.”

I do not have a copy of the final Wikipedia entry, but this was its thrust:

Received the British Fantasy Society Karl Edward Wagner Award in 1998.

The Three Ages:

1. 1986-2000 – Over 1000 fiction publications in magazines and anthologies, culminating in the Prime Books ‘Weirdmonger’ collection. (Aged 38 in 1986).

2. 2001-2010 – Publishing nine ‘Nemonymous’ anthologies

3. 2008-to date – Gestalt Real-Time Reviews.
Plus one Chomu Press novel ‘Nemonymous Night’, one InkerMen Press collection ‘The Last Balcony’, two Romanian published collections, three novellas that were independently published — and three multi-authored anthologies (The Ha of Ha, Classical Music Horror, Horror Without Victims).

8 thoughts on “Wikid Exdux

    • There is a conspiracy to airbrush my work from any posterity due to it? At the moment, I do not believe that contention but to be weighed in the balance, perhaps, should be the fact, after sample sifting existing Wikipedia entries, that my overall work’s ‘notability’ seems stronger or similar to many others.

      • It’s the article’s fault, for not demonstrating that notability – whoever created it didn’t do the legwork that should go into creating a new Wikipedia page. It looks like they just wrote down what they knew about you without backing it up with proper citations.

        Reading around, it seems that new articles about living people are *automatically* put up for deletion if they don’t contain any references, so that might be why yours came up for review.

        I agree that there are much less notable people with Wikipedia pages, and you often see that they are the only ones editing them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s