This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Fiction This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Someone has demanded a citation for the assertion that Thomas Monteleone went on to become a respected author of supernatural thrillers. I hereby cite the opinion of a publishing professional who's been working in the industry for a couple of decades, and has significant experience in the SF, Fantasy, and Horror genre: me. The house I work for does not currently publish Monteleone. I've never been his editor. I have no financial or professional reason to promote him or his work. I have personally witnessed or been party to professional and nonprofessional discussions of Monteleone's work, career, and character.

I stand by my original assertion. He's a respected author of supernatural thrillers. I'm not aware of any significant body of opinion to the contrary.

TNH 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)TNHReply

This article requires cleanup to correct its non-encyclopedic tone, unsourced statements, and non-NPOV language. Pat Berry 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

. . . seems a little over the top. Nicholls is a source for the assertion that Laser Books were formulaic and predictable. Nicholls is also a source for Nelson's book being one of the best. The assertion that the books were unsuccessful seems self-evident on the basis of the short life of the imprint, but could probably be sourced easily enough from Locus, if really necessary. The Anthony and Powers information can evidently be sourced on the basis of those books. There seems no reason to cut these when sources are available; I'll refrain from re-adding them but if someone has those sources and time to hand it would be easy to do. I can see cutting negative information about living people, per WP:BLP, but a {{cn}} tag or two would have done the job here, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to re-add anything that's verifiable. The article has had tags requesting sources since January, so it appears the sources won't add themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

@Mike Christie I dug out some of that older material and put it back in the article with citations. Feel free to take a look and see if I missed anything that could reasonably be cited. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)Reply