View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Ray

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 of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Ray

[edit]

Non-notable, unverified and possible hoax article that is also unbalanced and violates WP:AUTO. Delete Ardenn 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I really don't think you needed all those templates on the page though. Just the factual accuracy one or the NPOV would have sufficed. If the author wants to show us how notable he is, please indicate the book ISBNs. A google for the name makes it look like he does exist and is a poet, but all the books look like they were published by minor publishing houses. - Hahnchen 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is no different than any other poet or writers page, I can see a couple of items that look pompous but I have edited them out. You might as well delete all the poets in all the lists because they all contain relevent information on the persons accomplishments. Who is saying it is a HOAX?? All information is true. What is unvarifiable? Where is the material used in the accusations. Are you going to delete my other articles?? I am not tooting my own horn but I am known in Canadian poetry circles, I have made a contribution to Canadian poetry and Canadian "Small Press Publishing" and No to deleting me or any other poet just cause you dont know them. I will continue to try and learn wiki principles and editing practice and I DO rework pompous or personal pages to appear more neutral.

    There is such a thing in both Canada and the USA calles Small Press Publishing. Not all poets start out or continue with major publishing houses. Local and regional Small Press Publishers can publish famous and not so well known poets and authors. As far as the ISBN's I rarely noticed them in other authors pages, however I have taken note and mentioned that listing a book without the publishers name is the same as just making it up and writing anything down, THAT is unverifiable. I have been endeavouring to update and add many Canadian Publishers so the wiki links are there. Personally I never think of the ISBN in verification because the name of the publisher is usually listed and I know many of them. WayneRay 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

  • Comment For what it's worth, my local academic library has five of Ray's books. CJCurrie 00:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually frown upon when people write article about themselves. All the claims of notability are seriously weakened. Additionally, the objectivity is questionned. And this is not just a Wikipedia policy, judges recuse themselves when a family member is involved, scientists have others review their papers before publications. Tony Bruguier 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional Comment - I just went through all my Canadian Poets pages (see my WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay page) that I have written or edited and they all read like mine, most have Small Press publishers and some have major Canadian Publishers. We all know them and the names and the editors etc, You don't, and they are classed as minor? Hardly any had ISBN numbers attached and several had no publisher at all. They are still notable in the Canadian literary scene. Are you or someone going to delete them all??? I can go through the lists of American poets (etc) and I bet I will find the same thing. WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
    • Comment - I've not written any articles on authors, but if you type out the ISBN then Wikipedia will automatically link to sources for that book like ISBN 0590353403, it just makes it easier to check. I'm however, not too sure on Wikipedia's guidelines on ISBN numbers in authors articles. And don't take this nomination too harshly, let's wait to see how it pans out, I may change my vote. - Hahnchen 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:BIO. Amazon shows nothing to prove he's notable enough[1] and Google only shows 640 results [2]. However on the bright side, I did enjoy his "I Came Across A Field One Day" poem, very well written --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, tricky to verify importance and per the fact that even editors who might be notable should really resist the temptation to a) write about themselves, and b) go down the "If A is ok, why not B?" route. However, the template fest is totally unnecessary. Deizio 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 230/1,430 google hits [4], borderline nn/vain. Ronabop 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO and too few google hit. Protection would be required too as author may recreate this (maybe if it get recreated, let's assume good faith for now) Tony Bruguier 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable per all the above. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No books listed on Amazon and no ISBNs provided in the article are strong indicators of insufficient notability. It is unlikely that the subject's publications have the 5000+ audience that is usually required. Autobiography is not in itself a ground for deletion, but WP:AUTO contains very good advice: "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." dbtfztalk 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable author with large publication history. Kind of surprised at the delete votes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known in Canadian small-press publishing; I agree the article needs improvement. The notability of poetry is inherently hard to judge in an age when even well-known poets sell very few copies; I would hate to think that this means poetry is inherently unencyclopedic or that a quick google equips one to judge its notability. There's also some history here: the nom's suggestion of hoax may seem bizarre, given that a quick google shows he exists. But in fact the same nominator was behind two failed AfDs for Chris Faiers two months ago; the second was opened ten minutes after the first was closed as no consensus ([5],[6]). Given that Ray and Faiers are close associates, this nomination has a bad smell. · rodii · 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This University of Toronto biography provides verifiable evidence of notability for mine.[7]. It shows him as winning a Canadian Author and Bookman price in 1989 and he seems to have been publishing poetry for over twenty years making him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Writing about yourself is generally bad, but it seems a mistake to delete an article, because the writer was blatant about it. He could have picked a different account name, and this probably would have been kept more easily. Note to User:WayneRay: I suggest you put back mention of the prize, which you removed (with sources, of course), and add in any other prize(s) you won (again, with sources). It's a little to late for modesty, and that kind of thing is needed to demonstrate notability. --Rob 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep assuming all of the above is in fact true. I would like the references to be stronger than they are but as is they are acceptable. rodii also raises a good point about the nominator. SorryGuy 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. For great justice. 05:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jcuk 07:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some peoples notability criterions are getting ridiculously strong. Loom91 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, others. Samaritan 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't imagine that none of his poems have appeared in a publication with circulation of 5,000 or more. NoIdeaNick 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable as well as per Capitalistroadster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Ong (talk • contribs)
  • Keep seems to pass WP:BIO, but needs careful monitoring per WP:AUTO. User:WayneRay defintely needs to step back from editing the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to all Thanks for the positive and negative input. I took a look at 30 other Canadian poets in the List of Canadian Poets and theirs or most of the Small to Medium press published poets, have a similar article page to mine so why not delete all of those?? I shall endeavour to do a Google search on US and Canadian poets just to see what the counts are and put them beside the poets names. ALSO in regards to Amazon.com: As a publisher I was heavily involved in listing my app. 200 paper and electronic books but after 5 years deleted them all. The Canadian Poetry Association has its own electronic bookstore as does the League of Canadian Poets. Maybe I and others are staying Canadian! You might want to also try www.abebooks.com as well. I will add the ISBN's to the book lists as well as update the List of Canadian Poets ISBN's as there are very few listed there and on many US poets pages. And put back the award after I verify a link with the CAA. WayneRay 13:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
  • Keep, notable author; concur with JzG's recommendation for User:WayneRay to step back a bit.  RasputinAXP  c 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Add user page to Category:Notable Wikipedians. Agree with JzG as well. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable local poet. Referred to by Guelphites as "THE London Poet". If this page were determined deletable based on WP:AUTO I would personally recreate the entry. User:celsby
  • Keep Notable entry. Sure, it biolates WP:AUTO, but any bias created in such an article may be edited out by other editors and by using third party references. --Bob 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Wayne Ray should let others take it from here. Mangojuice 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think others have established notability here, WayneRay should step back and take JzG's advice though.--Tollwutig 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not a hoax Dlyons493 Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh noes! The spite in this one is strong. As GWH says, he should, ideally, recuse himself, but WP:AUTO is a guideline, not policy, and trying to improve articles is a good thing, even during AfD discussions. · rodii · 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF pardon my French Ardenn, BUT, didn't above users just tell me to update the page with references and ISBN numbers to verify the information. You really should give me examples instead of just criticism. There is way less information on almost the entire List of Canadian Poets and a few others US and foreighn ones I have been working on, why don't you go put a delete logo on all of them and then take a relax pill.Will someone other than myself and Ardenn please put the page in the correct tone, I will leave it alone for now. WayneRay 13:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Whether or not WayneRay follows WP:AUTO is irrelevant to this AfD. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

93 Highland Yes, I had not finished writing and editing it, i saw, a paragraph that I was going to delete, while away this week on vacation. The last paragraph should have been opmmitted, the plant list one. Maybe it is just under the wrong heading, should be part of U of Toronto and I may have it linked under botanical gardens. Delete the whole thing if you like, I am not back for a week to do anything about it. There are three photos on the page actually and yes, that is the President's house photo for the University of Toronto.(wrong phot what happened to the one I put there ????? Thanks for the note and I will endeavour to correct things I missed, after I get back home. WayneRay 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[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.