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 Delete. After checking the arguments and their validity, the delete opinion is clearly the strongest. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Persaud[edit]

Nonnotable person. All of the references and external links appear to be self-published sources that do not establish notability (I did not check them). Author KawalP has not written anything else on wiki, so he may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author's talk page shows that this article was previously tagged for speedy deletion and later for PROD. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Dgf32 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Shalom claims, all three of the references are third party creations. Shalom admits that he/she did not check the references or external links. Also,the statement that because someone has not written more than one article on a website constitutes a conflict of interest escapes me. This statement is illogical.

Self-published works in themselves are not indicative of non-notability. Some of the best books I have read have been self-published works.

I thought that once a deletion notice has been removed from an article or page, it should not be reinstated.

(KawalP (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. After looking at all of the links/references, I have to say that I don't believe the person meets the basic notability requirements. The majority of the links are either self-published or are fan-type sites hosted on free-space web URLs. It would be nice to have something non-Internet based that could establish the person's notability, but I don't think that would be forthcoming because I don't think he is notable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy does not qualify as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then countless entries that exist in Wikipedia should be removed. I have looked at what Shalom and Good Olfactory have written, including Good Olfactory's talk page and get the troubling feeling that these individuals are anti-Christian. Good Olfactory especially, seems to suffer from a complex in this regard. Just read his/her comments and arguments. (KawalP (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? This is nothing to do with anyone being "anti"-anything, and there's nothing on my talk page that should suggest to you I am "anti-Christian". This is a normal procedure that takes place in WP for scores of articles each day, regardless of their subject. For your other argument, see WP:WAX. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this page not proposed for deletion already, and such deletion opposed? Do Wikipedia rules not say that if the proposed deletion of a page is objected to and subsequently removed that the page should not be proposed for deletion again? Are we transgressing convention here? Are we being selective as to which articles should be approved and which should not be, based on the idiosyncrasies of biased individuals like Good Olfactory and his/her likes? (Cperlobo (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think you're confusing two different procedures. There is WP:PROD and WP:AFD. If a user opposes the proposal under WP:PROD, then the proposal usually goes on to this more formal stage, which is WP:AFD. Again, I'd encourage you to tone down the personalization of this issue and keep personal attacks out of it — anyway, I didn't nominate the article for deletion either under PROD or AFD. (I assume User:Cperlobo is the same as User:KawaIP, here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cperlobo & KawalP are two different individuals. I ask the owners and administrators of Wikipedia to do their best to mainatin the high standards of their encyclopedia. I ask that they do not allow ultra-liberals and anti-religionists to bastardize a noble venture.

(Cperlobo (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have looked at Good Olfactory's talk page and while some of his comments (not necessarily about the issue at hand) are not without merit, I do detect a measure of prejudice in his statements. Also, he seems to be somewhat judgmental.

(Juno200 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Juno200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. All the books are published through print-on-demand publishers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that Wikipedia administrators carefully consider the facts appertaining to this case before making a decision as to whether or not to delete the article. I remind them of the following:

1. Notability is a relative term and not because an author is self-published does it mean that his work is substandard. Increasingly, the trend in book publishing is toward print-on-demand publishing. Many excellent writers have no other recourse, mainly because of financial constraints.

2. The author in question is from Guyana, South America, and the concept of relative importance or notability is brought to the fore. Guyana is a small country on the South American continent and few writers, authors and poets emerge from this third-world country. A Guyanese, by just being a published author in the USA, accomplishes a certain measure of notability.

3. I have seen many Wikipedia pages and articles. Less notable people than Christopher Persaud have had pages written about them and have had such pages remain in the encyclopedia.

4. Lastly, I sincerely hope, contrary to what I sometimes read and hear, that Wikipedia really offers everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, a forum to participate freely in producing informative, truthful information for the world at large to see.

In closing, while I stand fully behind my arguments that have been provided in objecting to the deletion of Christopher Persaud, if my language in some instances was somewhat uncivil, I apologize to all who might have been offended.

(KawalP (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply 1. Notability as used in the wikipedia sense refers to the notablity guidelines. That he has chosen to self-publish doesn't necessarily mean that he is not notable, but the preponderance of self-published authors are not notable. Reliables sources to attest to notbility would overcome this. 2. Thta he is from Guyana is irrelevant. Guyana does produce notable authors such as Mark McWatt who have won literary prizes for their work. And as for being published in the US being notable, how does that square up with the fact that the works are self-published? 3. Other articles in wikipedia are irrlevant in considering the merits of this article. 4. I don't know what you are hearing but this is an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poetry is significant and not self-published. The award is real, and many academic poets list it in the CVs. Since he's notable as a poet, the religious publications also--which would by themselves not make him notable--can be included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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.