Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Glaysher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Glaysher

Frederick Glaysher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

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)

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)
  • 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)
Delete - there are no reliable sources stating why this person is notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete Fails these:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
Addendum Almost all of the biographical data is from the author's websites, or base on them. This fails the BLP policy: "the article is not based primarily on such sources". MARussellPESE (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment: He's not a professor. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability is a cause for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • May we presume that Cuñado meant "non-notability" is a cause for deletion? :) --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment When BLPStyle says badly written articles should be deleted, how can that not mean deleting the article? MARussellPESE (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment- Please feel free to cross-reference the above editors with Baha'i articles to prove for yourself that this is an attack based on religious issues, and has almost nothing to do with notability. As has been pointed out. Wjhonson (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment, I only count four Baha'i editors, and that has nothing to do with whether or not it deserves deletion. I could likewise say that your interest here lies primarily in promoting criticism of the Baha'i Faith, but that doesn't negate your comments. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's bullshit. His article doesn't mention that he's Baha'i. It implies that he's a notable poet or author or something. Do the Baha'is know something you don't, or does guilt by association fly on wikipedia? Wishtoremainanon (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Update So now it does? And all of it was added by a "new user". Should that be removed Wjhonson because its an unreliable new user with an axe to grind? Does guilt by association swing both ways? Beyond the Fulbright thing, there still isn't a single reliable source cited in the article backing up his biography. Most of his presence is online. Most of these "sources" are online. Online reviews of an online persona are reliable? And have we read his "Mission of Earthrise Press"? It's as paranoid a ramble as his anti-Baha'i stuff. Wishtoremainanon (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but tag for wikifying and expand some.Kitty53 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    Keep, per the aforementioned bio on the poetry foudation website. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I should lrn2read. Haven't done enough research to vote yet then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment That link is about Robert Hayden, does not say why Frederick Glaysher is notable. There are still no reliable sources documenting why this person is notbale. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)
  • Comment - Cunado I am not a critic of the Baha'i faith. I am a critic of Bahai revisionists who refuse to even read their own history and fight tooth-and-nail over any minutiae they perceive to come from an opposition camp. Secondly, this deletion was entered by a Single-Purpose-Account. Look at the contributions of this SPA. Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely. We do not cow-tow to SPA's. Wjhonson (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I would have brought this up to AFD either way; there are still no sources documenting why he is notable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment When did this become a forum for Wjhonson? And since when does an editor's affiliation impeach their point? (Asserting that it does is a Personal Attack by the way, and you've been doing it to the Baha'is almost every time you go there. Please stop. It's not an assumption of good faith.)
No, we don't kowtow to SPAs, but we do enforce policy, don't we? The article had a NN tag before you started editing it, Wjhonson, and it still has it afterwards. You're probably the most prolific editor at digging out obscure data (Whether or not it's relevant or reliable is a standing disagreement we often share.) — but if even after your best efforts, it still can't sustain a notability assertion, I'm quite confident stating that it isn't, no matter what anybody says. If you can't find it, the odds of anyone else doing so are are quite small. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability not established by sources Wiki-uk (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Editing a known work is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Neither Cheryl Klein or Arthur Levin have articles, neither should they. Even though they edited some of the most widely read books ever published they are not notable in themselves. Self-publishing is also not notable. Neither is doing a fullbright. In the rare instance that a self-published work sells millions of copies it's the sales that establish notability. This is not the case here. Unless something compelling gets added, which I doubt because if it's that compelling it would've already been there, there is no reasonable argument for inclusion. -LambaJan (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.