The result was delete. Sources weren't' found to rise to WP:GNG, nor was evidence presented of notability under WP:AUTHOR j⚛e deckertalk 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poet/author, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There are a very few sources which mention subject's name but no significant coverage in any. — Bill william comptonTalk 11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are lot of more, later I am going to improve and wikify the article.Justice007 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be fair, google books reviews and in the books foreword written by academics are reliable source, do not impose wrong interpretations of the policies. Subject is obviously notable and passes all policies. Policy does not state spicific numbers/members of the editrorial board. Anyhow, even these sources establish the notability of the subject, this and that, and here, though there are more. I consider editors accessment poor and non-sense weak opinion. Please do not preach me the policies.Justice007 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]