Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. H. Pugmire (2nd nomination)

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. I have withdrawn this proposal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only reliable source is not independent of the subject. The previous deletion proposal failed because it attracted his fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources include the numerous sources listed in the article, along with publications including Locus [1], Publishers Weekly [2] [3] [4], The Monarch Review, Fantasy Magazine [5], Asimov's Science Fiction [6], and New York Journal of Books. Various other mentions and references can be found with a Google search or two, here are a few random mentions: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Other sources listed in the article include The Lovecraft eZine, The New York Review of Science Fiction, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and The Seattle Times. I am quite confused on how the nominator came to the conclusion that "The only reliable source is not independent of the subject". MarkZusab (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes I was similarly confused. Could the nominator expand on this please? Mccapra (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per MarkZusab. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MarkZusab has already pointed out the relevant parts for how this article meets the guidelines for notability. It is also worth pointing out that the previous attempt at deletion did not fail due to canvassing, but because people pointed out sufficient evidence of the author's notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Iarann (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what it is about Pugmire that attracts rubbish delete requests, but if we're now assuming Locus and Publisher's Weekly (to list just two) are not independent and mere "fans" then something has gone very wrong with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre nomination. Clearly notable author. And no, I'm not one of his fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2019 (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.