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. Fram (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American poet and teacher. Author's COI is admitted on the talk page. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear vanity piece on behalf of a NN person Mayalld (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY KEEP No COI, article is neutral and objective, not a vanity piece. Article (including works, external links, and sources) makes very clear that the subject is a notable author. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above user has previously stated that he is a student/assistant of the subject, and consequently has a clear WP:COI in respect of this article Mayalld (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knowledge of a subject makes writing an article possible and does not constitute COI if said article is notable, neutral, informed, researched, and objective. If knowledge of a subject invalidates said article, then proceed with deletion. Wikipedia editors should not disrespect users for providing valid information as a public service. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At no point have I been disrespectful. You are simply too close to the subject to either be truly objective or to objectively decide whether the subject is notableMayalld (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, thank you for that clarification and explanation regarding the article's nomination for deletion. 199.94.67.44 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - assistant to the director of the honors program may meet WP:PROF. Article needs clean up. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally, I would not even think the Director her-/himself would be notable, unless there was something more than just that. --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an academic, doesn't meet WP:PROF, as a writer, doesn't meet WP:BIOTeleomatic (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. --Crusio (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. External links consist of subject's own website and faculty profile and four of subject's own works. Cited sources are a brief article in the Berkeley Beacon (not to slam the BB, but when half of your basis for satisfying WP:N is a single article in a college newspaper, you've already lost) and an interview in Outlook, dated within one month of each other. This is the entirety of the external material. The article makes reference to (unquoted!) praise by Eileen Myles and Alfred Corn, and briefly quotes Robert Pinsky and Richard McCann, but none of this is sourced. (Let me stress that: the subject's own work is externally linked, but material that might show notability is not sourced or even quoted.) The quotes read like back-of-the-jacket blurbs, which gives the article an advertising feel. It is possible that the subject is notable within one or more limited communities, but I don't think that's sufficiently general notability for Wikipedia's purposes. If this article can be rebuilt from the ground up by an author without a COI, demonstrating notability, it will be good. If not, not. But I think Mr. Roush will have to have a bit more of a career before that can be done. --7Kim (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (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.