Talk:Stephen H. Segal

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled[edit]

I have been advised the article is being considered for deletion. I have written the article as a statement of facts, not opinions. The facts are verifiable, and have been so footnoted. Having compared the content to acceptable similar biographies of Editors I believe the notability criteria is met. I have endeavored to maintain the neutrality p.o.v. throughout the article by documenting only the facts, and including no personal opinions. And let me further state - I personally have no business or financial interest in the projects of the subject (I am in the motorcycle business, and am not involved in any publishing businesses). I wrote the article as I believe the two year long re-vamp of Weird Tales under the guidance of Stephen H. Segal, which resulted in a Hugo Award nomination, and is the continuation of a notable career, has raised that career to a level of notability worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.--Stu Segal (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that given your "notability" comment I inadvertently omitted an important reference. That is the reference to the 2009 Hugo Award nomination, that appears at the Hugo Award website. Per the notability criteria I believe the nomination for this award causes the subject to rise to the level of notability required. I shall add the footnote to the article immediately. Thank you.--Stu Segal (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deciding to keep the article. On the issue of neutral point of view, please see my comments above.--Stu Segal (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the CoI tag was removed on 4/19/09 by Tevildo after AFD Passed and review of Editor Stu Segal's statements above. Please stop re-tagging for CoI.--VentnorNJ (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I can't help but notice that Stu hasn't explained his connection to Steven. Father? Brother? What? Until we have a clear explanation, I think the COI tag has to stay. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this article after Stephen’s nomination for a Hugo Award, recognizing he had crossed Wikipedia’s threshold of Notability. It is no secret that Stephen is my son (this is readily apparent in the public domain in many locations on the internet and, obviously, given my User Name, I did not try to hide the fact from Wikipedia) - HOWEVER, prior to submitting the article I carefully researched the policies on COI, POV Neutrality and Notability. Per the COI policy someone with a close relationship is not automatically deemed to have a COI, but may have bias - therefore a Neutral POV must be adhered to. I attempted to maintain a high degree of Neutrality, including only the facts, and those facts are supported by verifiable citations. I have included no opinions, conclusions or evaluations; I have also not included any language promoting the interests of the subject or the magazine he works for. The article, and it’s citations, have been reviewed by at least 3 other Editors, as well as 4 more who were involved in the AfD process.

If my relationship to Stephen somehow disqualifies this submission regardless of the standard of neutrality which I’ve applied, then I’d suggest “undoing” my contributions to the article and letting other unrelated editors submit the facts, if they so desire. I certainly would not have submitted the article if I believed it were improper to do so, or if I believed I was unable to present a neutral POV.--Stu Segal (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through this article and verified the sources I'm going to remove the COI tag again since it's clear that this article is legitimate and its subject notable. Charlottebyrd (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen H. Segal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015020014/http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html to http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]