Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van G. Garrett

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 keep. This close is on the "weakish" keep side, due to commentary such as, " I think that it probably now demonstrates sufficient notability..." and "...after the work done by Rpclod. I would be interested in whether the work undertaken is enough to warrant a change of heart..." The latter implies topic notability per improvements to the article, but doesn't qualify it specifically (e.g. by referring to sources in the article or the provision of sources herein). (

Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Van G. Garrett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish

WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - It looks to me like the author or authors of the article do not understand the need for third-party sources. Someone keeps commenting "There are sources here" but there are not. In any case, this seems to be a budding poet who has not yet become notable. Unless someone has other information, this needs to be a delete. There are now significant references. It is odd that the references include text from the articles referenced - that is not necessary. All that is needed is the reference itself. LaMona (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not been involved with this article previously. I am not a "there are sources here" apologist, but did perform a search and have found some decent references. I intend to update the article within the next day or two and hope that others will review and re-review at that time. Having said that, I appreciate the AfD nomination shining a light on this article.--Rpclod (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished my edits to the article and appreciate everyone's patience. I think that it probably now demonstrates sufficient notability for a keep recommendation but am unsure how much my work biases that thought.--Rpclod (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after the work done by Rpclod. I would be interested in whether the work undertaken is enough to warrant a change of heart from either Boleyn or LaMona who reviewed this prior to that effort. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rpclod, thank you so much for your hard work. Personally, I'm not sure, looking back over the article and
  WP:GNG, that he meets part of the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2014 (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.