Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Glaysher

Frederick Glaysher

Two reasons. Either one is fatal. 1. Not notable according to wikipedia:biographies. There's been a non-notable notice on it from its beginning. There's no awards and no "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". If the information is right he's written a couple vanity press poetry books, and it seems he runs the vanity press. 2. No reliable sources for main text according to wikipedia:biographies of living people. All the information appears to be picked up from his personal website. All the external links are questionable sources. Ignore these are there isn't a reliable source in the article. This is dodging the policy. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I note the persistent attacks on this article either by IP's or by new editors. The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment While I disagree with some of Jeff3000's edits (removing self-published material) I agree with the assertion (made elsewhere) that such material is insufficient to validate the notability of the whole article itself. If you want to rescue the article, please provide more verifiable and independent references so that the notability of the subject can be asserted. Also, IPs seem to varyingly attack and reinforce the article, if I understand this history logs correctly. Regardless of the perceived motivation of edits, they either stand up to wiki policy or they don't. That's (hopefully) what this process is supposed to be a part of. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources stating why this person is notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial discussion of the subject; these would both establish notability and provide verifiable content for the article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From experience, I know that finding sources establishing the notability of a poet can be fiendishly hard to find, now matter how great it may be in the concerned literary circles. A cursory check seems to me as he has enough sourceable claims, both for his work and as a person, to meet the criterions; as I am not familiar with the subject matter, I'll refrain from voting.--victor falk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails these:

WP:NN: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." An editor of someone else's work is not themselves notable.
WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Other than bibliographic notes, there are no sources that don't themselves seem to rely on his own webpage.
WP:V: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This article seems to have stale {{fact}} tags all over it.
WP:BLPSTYLE: "While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted". Applies to all the above.

MARussellPESE (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professor published by U of Michigan Press meets WP:Bio, the only actual policy cited as a reason to delete. Fact tags are not grounds for deletion, neither is notability. That leaves only BLPStyle, which also is not grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's not a professor. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a cause for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May we presume that Cuñado meant "non-notability" is a cause for deletion? :) --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not meeting the notability requirements. Being a critic of the Baha'i Faith is not notable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete for non-notability and too many un-cited sources. As mentioned, being an editor of someone else's work isn't really a notable achievement, per-se. For the record, though (Cuñado), the article doesn't even mention his being a critic of the Bahá'í Faith, so we should only judge the article based on what's there. If there are proper WP:V and WP:NN resolutions, then I would reconsider, but the absence of such kills the article's usefulness, I think. --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]