“I don’t know. I wasn’t thinking about it until you peed outside and I thought about variety.” –Sam

“I don’t know. I wasn’t thinking about it until you peed outside and I thought about variety.” –Sam

cuddly

“he’s more human sounding on the computer”

damn

cuddly

“he’s more human sounding on the computer”

damn

I just put back in the Gawker quote about subject. This is a significant statement by a significant source and no reason given for its removal. Perhaps the individual who did so, under the name K2wiki may be a sockpuppet for the subject. Redandwhitesheets

This article sounds like it was written by a friend of the subject. I’ve deleted irrelevant information–his nickname, “The Asian John Updike,” for instance–but I think there remains a notability issue. Almost all the secondary sources noted are blogs: is there enough verifiably independent, published material to justify an article? Jweather 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Out New York, Time Out Chicago, Publisher’s Weekly, Melville House Publishing, etc.

[edit] Blatant Advertising
Whether or not this author has enough notability to merit inclusion, this article is a blatant case of self-aggrandizement and advertising, exhibiting nothing of the style or neutrality appropriate to an encyclopedia article. See, for example, the comments (esp “this is Tao Lin’s secretary . . .”) at goodreads and that he is probably not, in fact, dead. If someone in publishing, criticism, or another literary field who’s unaffiliated with this author and familiar with his work, influence, and level of success wants to rewrite this article with NPOV, then great; if not, the article should probably be proposed for deletion. –Ninly 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon a little further research and a review of the rather shameful edit histories of the article and this talk page, it looks like this article clearly merits a speedy deletion under the “blatant advertising” criterion, or at least a deletion proposal for the notability issues. Note also deletion of “dissent” in the histories. I haven’t dabbled in this aspect of wikipedia, so i won’t be the first to tag the article for deletion, but let me know if you agree. Also note that if these two comments are removed, I will formally propose for deletion. –Ninly 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the publishing industry, and am not affiliated with Tao Lin. The subject of this page has had multiple books published (including on widely-distributed national presses), has had profiles in national and regional magazines; his books are widely distributed and reviewed, and he has done readings nationwide. This is quite clear from the external links available at the article. The article, as it stands now, understates his notability if anything. He also has been at the center of various controversies in the last year or two, that have apparently attracted pranksters to this page. If you want to lock the editing, that is one thing. But to delete an obviously notable fiction writer and poet because of the lack of NPOV of the pranksters seems to me to be the wrong approach. –K2wiki 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article as it stands right now is extremely neutral and straightforward. I have not read old versions of the page that may have been vandalized. But again, don’t hold the subject responsible for the work of vandals. A great many people have an axe to grind about this subject, as witness comments at the top of this page; I request that the editing on this page be restricted. –K2wiki 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s definitely fair and well put with regards to Lin’s notability, although the article was definitely neither neutral or appropriate at the time I discovered it, and it seemed at the time like more self-aggrandizement was involved — That is, I just didn’t recognize it as vandalism. Thanks for your response. –Ninly 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tao lin fraud
tao lin is fraudulent in his behavior to self-promote. He has altered many entries on the Gordon Lish page in order to link it to himself. He has named himself as Lish’s son (which I removed today). He has written short stories using Gordon Lish’s name as teacher and friend. Gordon Lish is neither. He doesn’t even like him or his work. This dude must be stopped. Do a google search and see what ruckus tao lin is causing just to have his fifteen minutes of fame.Mewlhouse 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal or professional affiliation with Tao Lin, but I balk at this reactionary response, particularly labeling him as “fraudulent.” I certainly understand and agree with key policies that limit the content of the entry and its associated links, but Tao Lin has garnered much of his notoriety due to what you call “ruckus;” his internet presence is largely responsible for his success. Plus, such responses only seem to amuse him and encourage his behavior. I point to the gawker link for evidence. Sisyphe42 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup
I’m working on cleaning up this bio and will delete anything irrelevant or that isn’t completely sourced, per BLP policy since this individual seems to be somewhat controversial. Note that I have no connection (or particular interest) in Tao Lin; just bringing this article up to code. Part of that will mean removing a lot of external links. — phoebe / (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

might as well delete the whole article. this is about as important to the world as another pokemon article. 24.18.229.198 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just put back in the Gawker quote about subject. This is a significant statement by a significant source and no reason given for its removal. Perhaps the individual who did so, under the name K2wiki may be a sockpuppet for the subject. Redandwhitesheets

This article sounds like it was written by a friend of the subject. I’ve deleted irrelevant information–his nickname, “The Asian John Updike,” for instance–but I think there remains a notability issue. Almost all the secondary sources noted are blogs: is there enough verifiably independent, published material to justify an article? Jweather 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Out New York, Time Out Chicago, Publisher’s Weekly, Melville House Publishing, etc.

[edit] Blatant Advertising
Whether or not this author has enough notability to merit inclusion, this article is a blatant case of self-aggrandizement and advertising, exhibiting nothing of the style or neutrality appropriate to an encyclopedia article. See, for example, the comments (esp “this is Tao Lin’s secretary . . .”) at goodreads and that he is probably not, in fact, dead. If someone in publishing, criticism, or another literary field who’s unaffiliated with this author and familiar with his work, influence, and level of success wants to rewrite this article with NPOV, then great; if not, the article should probably be proposed for deletion. –Ninly 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon a little further research and a review of the rather shameful edit histories of the article and this talk page, it looks like this article clearly merits a speedy deletion under the “blatant advertising” criterion, or at least a deletion proposal for the notability issues. Note also deletion of “dissent” in the histories. I haven’t dabbled in this aspect of wikipedia, so i won’t be the first to tag the article for deletion, but let me know if you agree. Also note that if these two comments are removed, I will formally propose for deletion. –Ninly 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the publishing industry, and am not affiliated with Tao Lin. The subject of this page has had multiple books published (including on widely-distributed national presses), has had profiles in national and regional magazines; his books are widely distributed and reviewed, and he has done readings nationwide. This is quite clear from the external links available at the article. The article, as it stands now, understates his notability if anything. He also has been at the center of various controversies in the last year or two, that have apparently attracted pranksters to this page. If you want to lock the editing, that is one thing. But to delete an obviously notable fiction writer and poet because of the lack of NPOV of the pranksters seems to me to be the wrong approach. –K2wiki 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article as it stands right now is extremely neutral and straightforward. I have not read old versions of the page that may have been vandalized. But again, don’t hold the subject responsible for the work of vandals. A great many people have an axe to grind about this subject, as witness comments at the top of this page; I request that the editing on this page be restricted. –K2wiki 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s definitely fair and well put with regards to Lin’s notability, although the article was definitely neither neutral or appropriate at the time I discovered it, and it seemed at the time like more self-aggrandizement was involved — That is, I just didn’t recognize it as vandalism. Thanks for your response. –Ninly 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tao lin fraud
tao lin is fraudulent in his behavior to self-promote. He has altered many entries on the Gordon Lish page in order to link it to himself. He has named himself as Lish’s son (which I removed today). He has written short stories using Gordon Lish’s name as teacher and friend. Gordon Lish is neither. He doesn’t even like him or his work. This dude must be stopped. Do a google search and see what ruckus tao lin is causing just to have his fifteen minutes of fame.Mewlhouse 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal or professional affiliation with Tao Lin, but I balk at this reactionary response, particularly labeling him as “fraudulent.” I certainly understand and agree with key policies that limit the content of the entry and its associated links, but Tao Lin has garnered much of his notoriety due to what you call “ruckus;” his internet presence is largely responsible for his success. Plus, such responses only seem to amuse him and encourage his behavior. I point to the gawker link for evidence. Sisyphe42 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup
I’m working on cleaning up this bio and will delete anything irrelevant or that isn’t completely sourced, per BLP policy since this individual seems to be somewhat controversial. Note that I have no connection (or particular interest) in Tao Lin; just bringing this article up to code. Part of that will mean removing a lot of external links. — phoebe / (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

might as well delete the whole article. this is about as important to the world as another pokemon article. 24.18.229.198 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)