Talk:Casey Rae

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casey Rae. 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/20131004220323/http://failover.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-indictment-claims-popular-web-site-shared-pirated-material/2012/01/19/gIQA4rDwBQ_story_1.html to http://failover.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-indictment-claims-popular-web-site-shared-pirated-material/2012/01/19/gIQA4rDwBQ_story_1.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability and conflicts of interest

I'd like to start a discussion on whether Casey Rae meets the criteria for WP:NBIO. From my perspective the closes fit is WP:AUTHOR, which he does not appear to pass.

Additionally, there have been several SPA editors over the years including Jackparsons23, Thotrengtsal, and most recently an IP editor. The nature of these accounts and edits suggests a COI to me, especially the recent repeated removal of the COI/UPE templates without explanation. Vegantics (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the maintenance tags added in January and May 2026

I’m posting here to contest the {{Template:COI}}, {{Template:Notability}}, and {{Template:Primary sources}} tags recently added to this article, and to provide context for the editing history.

This article has been stable for close to a decade and was not created by me. I am Casey Rae, the subject of this article. I became aware of the maintenance tags and have been attempting to address them by correcting dead links and updating citations—not to promote myself, but to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia standards.

The notability concern is not supported by the sourcing, which includes independent coverage in ‘‘The New York Times’’ (summer reading selection, 2019), ‘‘The Washington Post’’ (book review, June 2019; news feature, June 2015), NPR (book coverage, June 2019; music industry reporting, July 2015), ‘‘Billboard’’, ‘‘Wired’’, and ‘‘The Irish Times’’. These are independent journalism pieces, not primary sources.

The COI flag appears to have been triggered by edits from a newer account. My long-standing account (jackwhitesideparsons) made prior edits to this page, but I am currently locked out due to a password recovery failure—Wikipedia’s reset emails are not arriving despite multiple attempts. I am posting from a secondary account in the interim.

I am requesting that editors review the actual sourcing before concluding notability has not been established, and would welcome any guidance on resolving the account recovery issue. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Lastly, I’m not sure how someone who has three books on major publishers, with one of those books published in 7 international translations doesn’t qualify as WP:AUTHOR.

I would appreciate another editor considering these data points. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Temp account, have you checked out this or the WP:VRTN? Otherwise, it appears the correct account name is Jackparsons23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that there is a reasonable case to be made that #3 is WP:AUTHOR is met. With its multiple reviews in significant locations, the Burroughs book clearly is notable (under the standard set by WP:NBOOK.) There is a question of whether, having a single notable work, the author is better discussed as part of the article on the book (just like we would discuss an actor with one noted role on the page for that film role.)

The argument that they have three books from major publishers that the subject puts forth is not sufficient; having books out from publishers proves that one is an author, but not inherently a notable one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR may be too narrow for this, but the page also cites reporting on work related to copyright, technology, policy, and the intellectual property sectors based on Casey Rae’s writing and analysis.

When is it appropriate to remove the page issues tags? Like I mentioned, this page has existed for a long time with no problems; if anything, the notability quotient has increased.

Thank you for your reply and balanced assessment. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

At this point, it's a consensus issue, and I wouldn't want to try to settle it without at least trying to get the input from the people who placed or restored the tag. @Graywalls and Vegantics: Do youy have anything to say for this discussion? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27874-10:You addressed that you've made edits from your long standing account "jackwhitesideparsons" however, I am not seeing any contributions by that account. Would you please clarify the account(s) under which you've previously made edits from? Graywalls (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I might have had that wrong, because I very rarely logon to wiki, and in fact only did so to try to conform the article thst has been there forever to community standards.

To be honest, I find this all quite frustrating! ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is consensus to pull the page, fine. But then a new title will be published on Oxford University Press as a mass market title, it’ll get reviewed in a bunch of places, with interviews, etc.

and so at some point, I’d imagine we’d have to go through this whole rigamarole again.

That doesn’t seem like a great use of my own time, but I respect that others have more invested in these protocols. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason I suspect a lack of notability is that none of the current citations are actually about Rae. This would suggest that he is not notable enough (by Wikipedia’s standards of WP:SIGCOV) to have an article. The references are either about his work or minor mentions and quotes. There are several citations about his book on Boroughs, but currently none about his other books, and multiple notable books would be needed for WP:NAUTHOR. I think there might be other references out there that could improve this article to the point that it meets WP:NBIO, but presently it does not. Vegantics (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at WP:NAUTHOR, and I am not seeing that requirement for multiple books. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"... note the singular "a". Or are you saying that a single book is not "a work"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

“Burroughs,” if we are nitpicking, and I feel in my rights to suggest that we are.

in November, Dead Dharma comes out on OUP, which will most assuredly generate the same amount of sourcing as the prior publications. What then?

So go ahead and delete the page now, and then maybe someday someone who isn’t me will go through all of that hassle to put a page back together for an author who has established multi- field credibility and had their work translated into multiple languages.

in the meantime, I wish you the best. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the consensus here, if any?

I previously mentioned the upcoming title on OUP. 2027 will see the publication of another book on Bloomsbury, in addition to a chapter in a volume slated for this year on the same imprint.

How many well publicized, reviews, and cited books does an “author” need to have to be “ notable” in their field? Do you want sales ranks? Non-English articles, reviews, and interviews for the international translations?

And where might one file a complaint about having to make this case in the first place? This entire process seems quite one-sided. At a time when Wikipedia itself is under attack, is it good policy to offend credible and transparent page stewards and or subjects?

Unless I hear back with consensus in the next I dunno, hour, I intend to delete the tags. I feel this matter has been well covered.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best. ~2026-27874-10 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Might actually satisfy WP:NACADEMIC with his bibliography.Simonm223 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, look at Google Scholar. The Burroughs book looks influential and has multiple academic reviews. At the very least WP:NAUTHOR is clearly satisfied. WP:NACADEMIC is a maybe. This guy is obviously notable. Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like there is consensus to remove the WP:NBIO template, which Rae has already done. I do still have concerns about WP:COI and would encourage COI editors to comply with appropriate guidelines. Vegantics (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)