Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis W. Tancred

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. Merging can be discussed further on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Tancred[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced biography dating back to May 2007. I do see some hits on Google Books, but the content is hidden and does not reveal to me if this person is notable or not. I am unable to find good biographical material for this subject. From what I can tell this name is a pseudonym. Is this person still alive even? It has a BLP sources tag but I can't tell. The article states that the subject's influence on the poetry genre was "relatively minor". If someone can locate solid references for this article please leave me a note on my talk page for reconsideration. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are exhaustive books discussing the cantos, and they will discuss every person in it. Readers might well want information about the references in this rather difficult poem, and here is the first place most people look,. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If indeed the name is just a pseudonym, then a merge/redirect would be best. See Talk:Francis W. Tancred#Pseudonym. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imagism or Poets' Club. There isn't really enough information on him online, and I wonder how much is there offline. The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature which has hundreds of poets in it, doesn't mention him. Books I can find in Google and Google Books searches mention him in a line or two. He was a stockbroker with an avocation for poetry, a member of the Poet's Club and one of the few that T.E. Hulme brought with him from there to a group that met regularly together and, I think, all became Imagist poets -- Tancred definitely became an Imagist poet. Pound apparently had a low opinion of him. We don't even know if Tancred ever published a book of his own poetry. It seems worthwhile to have some information on him in the encyclopedia, given his associations, so merge to an article about those associations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per DGG's argument. Pound mentioning him in the cantos makes his name an extremely plausible search term, and for me tips the balance in favor of an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mention in The Cantos is reference and sufficient proof of notability. As long as there is a stub, there is a chance it can be improved. Giano 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Giano... I respect your opinion. Would you please elaborate as to why a mention in The Cantos should suffice as proof of notability? I would like to agree, but I'm not sure I understand how that would justify a stand-alone article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Vartanza (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (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.