 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 15. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per sources provided here I am voiding this AFD close as the evidence of notability now seems strong enough to overcome to delete arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicholas Hagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Sussex, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Vanity article, no evidence of independent notability. --JN466 13:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator’s facts are shaky: the restored hall was in Suffolk, not Sussex and “no mention of their (i.e. his) grand unified theory” is contradicted by the 63,400 results for the book that has Grand Unified Theory as a subtitle. “Unremarkable” is a subjective judgement. The editor of any author needs to source comments in author’s works. Author’s many books are all published by reputable publishers, all material is verifiable. There are several hundred thousand references to the books on internet. Sample on 5.1.2011 showed a total of 833,600 results for author/book search for nine of them: in literature, Selected Poems 133,000 results; Collected Poems 120,000 results; Classical Odes 66,200 results; Overlord 43,900 results; Armageddon 45,700 results; in history, The Fire and the Stones, which is subtitled A Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion, 63,400 results; The Syndicate 52,400 results; The Secret Founding of America 157,000 results; and in philosophy, The Universe and the Light 152,000 results. Entries for author in International Who’s Who in Poetry, International Who’s Who of Authors and Writers, Dictionary of International Biography, The Cambridge Blue Book, Writers Directory and other similar publications for many years. David Gascoyne, Kathleen Raine and Asa Briggs spoke at launch of Selected Poems/The Fire and the Stones (pictorial evidence in A Mystic Way). Ted Hughes wrote author a six-page letter about the grand unified history theory/other works, see Letters of Ted Hughes, ed. by Christopher Reid. Author made 25 live radio broadcasts to US about The Secret Founding of America in May-June 2007 (verifiable from contact list supplied by publisher), indicative of his US profile. Similar radio broadcasts anticipated when its sequel The Secret American Dream comes out in US in April 2011. Many endorsements on books’ back covers (e.g. by Laurens van der Post), not included in article. Submit there is enough notability to keep. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanrac1959 has self-identified on Commons as Hagger's personal assistant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe conflict of interest relates to the posting of a picture by the author’s PA on 2-3 Jan 2011. The picture could not be uploaded because the name Hagger had a long-term, unjustified vandalism tag attached to it. Wikipedia administrator looked into this and removed the vandalism tag after realising the uploader was not a vandal. The picture is now uploaded and in the public ___domain. The conflict of interest relates to the uploading of the picture in relation to the vandalism tag. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- That has nothing to do with the fact that there don't appear to be any secondary sources discussing Hagger. I just don't see any evidence of notability. --JN466 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Certainly meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and possibly many other guidelines for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. References overhauled, secondary sources now in, author-referencing reduced. Author's works have been translated into several languages - Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. - and are sold in bookshops worldwide, see book search results. Author has international/global theme and profile.Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy Keep. Agree it meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and sources more detailed. Google search also throws up plenty of results. Notability satisfied for inclusion.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)— Pink dog with cigar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep. Minor tidying up now completed. All issues now addressed, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK criteria. Seven days have now passed, can deletion/multiple issues tags now be lifted? Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't document that the subject is notable, and thus that he satisfies the requirements of the General Notability Guideline, nor can I find specific citations that show the subject satisfying WP:AUTHOR. As noted, many of the references are the subject's own work, which confirms the statements of the article but does nothing for notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.