Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Woodward Warder

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Woodward Warder

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notspeedyanything. A quick glance doesn't make it look like he necessarily meets the GNG. I haven't looked through enough stuff that I would normally feel comfortable making a delete vote here, but regardless of any problems in the nom I think this afd should run its course. Kevin (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote a bunch of stuff in the late 1800s which nobody really seemed to care about, and then got involved in a failed opera house project. The only real trace of notability (inclusion in a fairly eccentric college course) is faint indeed. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG one way or another. While the Google Book hits seem promising at first, there's nothing there but one or two really, [ http://books.google.com/books?id=ckBYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA616&dq=%22George+Woodward+Warder%22&hl=en&ei=qyeCTuDUCsaftgerrYTZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22George%20Woodward%20Warder%22&f=falsereally short reviews] (that make fun of him, incidentally). Drmies (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Both the nomination and the two "speedy keep" comments are immaterial because they do not actually address why the article should be deleted or kept on its own merits. This leaves us with two "delete" opinions, which is not clear enough a consensus, hence the relisting. Sandstein 08:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of Research Papers (KC0131) on George Woodward Warder at http://www.umkc.edu/WHMCKC/Collections/IKC0131.HTM (five folders, State Historical Society of Missouri Research Center - Kansas City)
Books by George Woodward Warder available online:

Invisible Light (NY, Dillingham, 1900) http://books.google.com/books?id=-38AAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Cities of the Sun (NY, Dillingham, 1901) http://books.google.com/books?id=538AAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Stairway to the Stars (NY, 1903) http://books.google.com/books?id=TwIeAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
The Universe a Vast Electric Organism (NY, Dillingham, 1903) http://books.google.com/books?id=3-hHAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Eden Dell (poems, 1878) http://books.google.com/books?id=3dA_AAAAYAAJ&dq=george%20woodward%20warder&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Utopian Dreams and Lotus Leaves (poems, 1885) http://books.google.com/books?id=F1QmAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=

Keep. I have just learnt that George Woodward Warder was a notable if unlucky figure in 19th Century Missouri, writing everything from strange cosmology to poetry, and practising law and (unfortunately for him) real estate investing. An extraordinary man who certainly deserves a place in WP, and a more detailed article too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting eccentric. Sources are enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 1 October 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.