Talk:Jonathan Maberry

Searches

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Potential conflict of interest ?

Since the subject of the article has been editing it, I've put a note regarding a potential conflict of interest on his talk page, and also recommended reading WP:AUTO. CultureDrone (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest.

Maberry is considered to be, at least by some, a relentless self-promoter, including using spam. He's been told several times to stop it and, IIRC, has been privately told that his spam to at least some SF-related organizations is making him the subject of ridicule, but has ignored those emails.

But, if I wasn't aware of that, a look at Amazon indicates that his books are popular and it seems that his seminars are doing well. I could do some actual research -- it appears that we move in overlapping circles -- but my uneducated opinion is that there's no reason for there not to be an article about him. The problem is that, from the name, he created it and is the person who's keeping it up to date. Since he's been quite open about the fact that he's the one making changes I doubt that he knows that this isn't acceptable.

I don't know where this should be taken from here. I don't want him tarred by the article being taken down leaving just the tag but I'm also not comfortable leaving the article up. Kovar (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As is the case with many authors, considering budget cutbacks at the publishers level, Maberry took it upon himself to create this entry. Everything contained in this article is accurate and easy to research, but who has the time?--Laffertyd (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to start?

The general principle is that if a person is notable enough (and often if you aren't) someone will start an article on them. It can be frustrating for individuals who feel it is an important part of their online visibility, personal branding, etc. but there are channels that can be used, people can request an article and you could also drop a note into the relevant Project. We work with various people to help improve their articles (I can name half a dozen off the top of my head that I have dealt with), the important thing is to stick to guidelines like WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

There is cause for concern about some of the other editors on the article as well as the main eponymous account, possibly enough for a checkuser request to look for sockpuppets:

• Careerdoc (talk · contribs) started this article and that first version (which reads like a resume) includes the sentence stating he is "Executive Director of The Career Doctor for Writers (www.careerdoctorforwriters.com)"
• Authortalks (talk · contribs) edited this article and started the (now deleted) Zombie CSU: The Forensic Science of the Living Dead, not only were they the main editor on that page but they kept removing maintenance tags leading another editor to make an edit with the summary "remove inappropriate, legalistic threat to those who would use an appropriate editorial template that clearly expresses its concern within the template itself, restore templates to combat vandalism". Such edits are a cause for concern.

You ask "Who has the time?" but we have millions of articles where people have found the time to write and source much larger articles, so, going back to my first point, people do find the time. Looking at your page I see you are Mayberry's... what? agent/promoter/media consultant? So, while I understand the point, you are hardly neutral on this point (and should also make sure you read and understand WP:COI as your edits here could also be viewed by some as being problematic).

I hope that helps explain the general ideas and principles. I certainly don't want to discourage the subject of articles from contributing (as they can prove very useful for clarifying points, providing sources and contributing photographs) but starting and extensively editing the articles is generally frowned upon.

For the record winning Bram Stokers is enough to prove notability so we needn't be worried about the article being deleted but the Conflict of Interest tag can be difficult to shift - I think we have fixed the article problems whenever I've found them but the solution ranges from heavy copy editing to gutting the article and starting again. The first step is for the relevant parties to read the guidelines I've given above and abide by them (as COI concerns have been expressed that will pretty much mean stopping editing this and relate articles and working through the talk page and discussing changes with editors).

If you have any further questions then you can ask them here or drop me a note on my talk page. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I was reminded of this article because the subject was scheduled to be on a number of panels at an East Coast convention this past weekend. A friend who's well aware of the self-promotion, including efforts to be on panels as often as possible, then laughed to me about a note in the newsletter indicating that the subject of this article was not going to be on any of the panels.

Having checked back I see no new comments here and only one of the changes made to the article has been by someone who has an active Wikipedia account, Emperor. My recommendation and request is that the COI flag be updated from May of 2008 to this month, Nov. 2010. Kovar (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having come back to this I still see no new significant changes. At some point one of us should follow up.

Kovar (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dropping back in myself again (I was thinking of giving one or two of his books a spin out of pure curiosity) and I can't see any great change. I can scoop up a couple of few references for more recent comic book work, but there hasn't been a huge amount. Has the situation changed on other references since you made a big research effort? What we really need are better sources for his novel work, so we can do a more extensive rewrite and remove the COI header (do we need to update the date if nothing much has changed since it was added?). The big surprise is that there isn't much - you'd have thought someone described here as a self-promoter might have rummaged up some good interviews and/or got their books out to high profile reviewers, things we could make use of.

Other than this article (and we have really tried to make it better), the main things that need attention are the articles on his books: Joe Ledger Series (not sure on that capital "S") and the two pages on the novels have no sources - they seem ripe for deletion unless someone can improve them. Rot & Ruin looks superficially better but I see 3 wordpress blogs, Goodreads used twice (I see we are using it once on this article too) and a blogs.com blog in the sources (and the book itself) - only the NYPL blog looks like anything approaching a reliable source. So that isn't exactly an example of how to improve the Joe Ledger articles.

Anyway not really much progress. I'll have another root around over the next few days and see what I can find. (Emperor (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

Zombie CSU: "Nonfiction"...?

As there are no such beings as undead predatory post-humans, exactly how is Zombie CSU "nonfiction?" Should this be classified as 'humourous fiction' instead? Calibanu (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Research; editing; flags; conclusions

Because of a comment on my talk page I came back to take a look at this article.

There aren't any better references; for some reason I spent something close to two hours searching everywhere for them. This includes looking for an external, direct statement of the fact that Patient Zero is launching a new series. The interviews are inappropriate. Had there been no better external reference to Maberry taking over the Black Panther series I would have left that one in. Fortunately the second reference worked. The external link to author appearances was also inappropriate.

Meanwhile, because interviews are useful to an author I did a search of his blog/website to see if they were listed. They aren't. Further research determined that there is no list of appearances. There's no clear bibliography on the authors personal pages. (Amazon doesn't help as Maberry has has published a sufficient number of comic books and been included in anthologies that Amazon doesn't help a reader trying to find them.) That he's picking up Black Panther is obscured by layout and format.

In short I've just spent a great deal of time trying to bring this article more in line with Wikipedia. I think that all flags except for Conflict of Interest can now be removed. As someone who's in the business, knows something about promotion, and doesn't realize when she's being obsessive I additionally did a great deal of external research. My conclusion, both for the sake of Wikipedia and the author, is that I very strongly suggest that the author, his agent, and anyone else remotely related focus on presenting data in other media.

--Kovar (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)