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. Continued discussion will not change the fact that adequate sources to meet WP:GNG have not been found. lifebaka++ 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Suffolk, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. In particular User:Sanrac1959 has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The first Afd was closed as delete, but this was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15. I have no view on this article, but I suggest that "single purpose accounts" or COI are not the issue. The issue is whether the references, and there are many of them, demonstrate notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite right. The AfD was closed as delete, but in response to a claim from the aforementioned Sanrac1959 that there were further sources, the closing admin reversed their close before seeing the actual references. In response to my request to relist the AfD, the closer decided to raise the matter at DRV instead. Unsurprisingly, we ended up here again. The fact that Sanrac1959 has made the claim that they are Hagger's personal assistant should be an indication that sources proffered by them need to be examined carefully. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is also worth pointing out that among Hagger's books are self-published works and works published by O Books, who seem to be only a step above a vanity publisher. O Books explicitly notes that some books are "subsidized by the author" including particular mention of "poetry". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DC’s opening statement is the same as a month ago and just as misleading, and the same refutations apply. Hagger’s “grand unified theory” of world history and religion is the subtitle of his book The Fire and the Stones, as the article makes clear. The 51 sources are not “almost all the author’s own works”, they are all third-party. At least two of the spas were vandals. The reason I had to self-identify to WP was to get the vandal tag unjustifiably applied to me lifted. For the last month DC seems to have been on a one-man mission to delete Hagger. Is this how WP administrators normally conduct themselves? I was led to believe that WP was a fair-minded forum. In his first comment DC says that the references were not seen by Spartaz before closure, but this is not true, they were. They were posted at 11.44 on 13 January and the new article uploaded at the same time, and Spartaz closed at 18.38, having seen them, as he can confirm. (He wrote “Yes, that looks good enough for me”, i.e. he had seen the new references.) DC’s next comment untruly describes some of Hagger’s works as “self-published” and denigrates O Books, one of Hagger’s publishers since 2004, which has hundreds of authors and sells books worldwide, particularly in the US. O Books have been notified of DC’s comment and I understand will be making a statement, which should be posted on this page. Bduke is surely right that the issue is not a continuous unfounded personal attack on Hagger but whether the sources are decent. Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not intend to get into a debate here with the subject of this article (or someone claiming to be their proxy), but for the record:

    - I am not an administrator;

    - The additional sources mentioned by Sanrac1959 were not added to the article itself until 14 January, after the closing admin reversed their close of the original AfD, but that is not relevant to this discussion or the current state of the article;

    - With regard to single purpose accounts aside from Sanrac1959, there is a history of single-purpose accounts associated with Hagger's BLP and related articles on his poems (i.e, User:GardinerNeDay, User:George199329, and, from the first AfD User:Pink dog with cigar);

    - Some of Hagger's books are self-published, and editors can follow this link to confirm what I said above about O Books;

  • Sanrac1959 is right about the sources no longer being so heavily self-sourced and I have struck that bit of cut-and-paste from the first AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, a lifelong, wealthy self-promoter has managed to get himself a fair amount of attention. But this article greatly overstates his accomplishments, and misrepresents minor publishers as major ones and fringe academic theories as mainstream. His assistant just above acknowledges that he is organizing a concerted effort to keep this promotion on Wikipedia. We are being astroturfed, folks. Chick Bowen 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Steady Keep - Per references which shows this persons clear notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment which sources demonstrate "clear notability"? SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThere are a few things which are unprofessional about this article. Despite pruning, there is still evidence of peacock flattery, and more thoroughness is needed with the references. However, I do not think it is worthy of deletion. The size of his acomplishments and fame seem to be in debate, but weather he is mainstream or niche it does not matter. If there are people buying and reading his books (which I assume there must be if an independent publisher is involved) then they should be able to look him up on wikipedia to find out more about him. More attention should be on correcting the article rather than deleting it. I would suggest the following alterations:

  • - "...the only Angry hero to turn away from the outer world and undergo an inner transformation." The use of the word 'only' makes this sound like a ridiculous assumption backed up by no research. There are many figures from mythology and history who can be described in the same way.

    - "Hagger wrote a short story in 1966, and during the next 40 years wrote a thousand more." The use of the word 'thousand' communicates an over exaggeration. A wikipedia fact needs to be far more precise, please count the stories properly instead of using an estimated figure in an attempt to sound impressive.

    - "It remains to be seen whether Universalism has the potential to be the most important movement in thought and art since Existentialism, as has been claimed." This is undeniably cringey. Wikipedia is not the place to make bold prophetic statements about what a person might achieve, it is an encyclopedia of facts. Hector chorda (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)— Hector chorda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• On the above three points: “Angry hero” means “Angry Young Man hero” (i.e. of the 1950s movement), will correct the article to make clear. There are 1,001 stories in the Collected Stories, so one in 1966 plus a thousand more is mathematically accurate and not an exaggeration. Will make this clear in the article. Will remove the final sentence from the article. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by O Books

“At O Books we do not claim to be a major publisher. The imprint only started in 2004. But the idea that we are only a step above a vanity publisher is absurd, and potentially damaging to us. Go to ‘About us’ on the website for comments from the trade, and reputable sources like The Bookseller, the main trade magazine in the UK.

We have published some poetry titles that we do not see as commercial, where the author or a university or an organization might make a contribution to the production costs. Three years ago (when that section of the website was written) that might have amounted to 1% or so of our list. Now it amounts to a small fraction of that, in terms of numbers of titles and income. Probably far less than most independent publishers, particularly in the area of academic publishing and poetry. We just happen to be open about it.

It’s not my place to comment on the tone of the entry, but I can assure the administrators that we publish Nicholas Hagger on his merit and his sales. He has also been published by other independent publishers like Watkins. His titles get excellent endorsements and reviews, from serious people, prominent in the fields of art and philosophy. A sample review from one of the latest works of his we’ve published, The New Philosophy of Universalism:

In this magisterial work Nicholas Hagger unites the rational and intuitive strands of Western philosophy in the light of the latest findings from physics, cosmology, biology, ecology and psychology. His in-depth exposition of these sciences and their philosophical implications is breathtaking in scope and detail and fully justifies his declaration of a Metaphysical Revolution, which also has profound consequences for our understanding of world affairs. This is one of the most important philosophical books to appear since Whitehead’s ‘Process and Reality’ eighty years ago and deserves the widest possible readership. A stupendous achievement. David Lorimer, Programme Director, Scientific and Medical Network

Of course others will disagree. But I can’t see this factor as reason for deleting the entry (rather than revising it if necessary). The comment that Nicholas Hagger is a ‘wealthy self promoter’ is irrelevant. I have no idea how wealthy he is. But when did having money mean you weren’t able to write? How many other authors would that now exclude? And few authors today are not engaged in promotion of some kind. Nicholas Hagger has no financial stake or connection with, or ownership of, or shares in, O Books (one of several imprints in John Hunt Publishing Ltd, to which the same applies), and O Books has no connection with Oak-Tree Books. He is one of 700 or so authors we currently have on the website, and treated on the same basis as all the others.

John Hunt, Owner, John Hunt Publishing Ltd, O Books and other imprints.

O-Books www.o-books.net, Zero Books www.zero-books.net, Circle Books www.circle-books.net.”

Posted at the request of John Hunt/O Books by Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrac1959, can you ask John Hunt if David Lorimer's review of Hagger's book was published somewhere, or is it a book jacket blurb? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources. The policies of "I don't like it" and "WP is not censored" might be relevant. Borock (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are a lot of sources, but which demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, to satisfy WP:GNG? SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are few, if any reliable, independent secondary sources on this person. The article does indeed contain over 50 footnotes, but there is considerable duplication, a number of them appear to be citations to unpublished correspondence or lectures, others don't identify the articles, authors or page numbers supposedly being cited, others are on their face not reliable sources. A check through Google shows that, other than a handful of articles about the estate where he lives, there is virtually no coverage whatsoever of his career, writings or philosophy which is the bulk of the focus of the article. A prolific author whose work is ignored is simply not notable. Absent that this BLP does not meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR, and none of his works meet the standard of WP:BK. The initial decision to delete this BLP was undoubtedly correct. Fladrif (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references fulfil Admin Spartaz’s requirement of two decent sources, with which he concurred. As he found, there are a number of reliable independent secondary sources that are non-trivial in newspaper articles, other books, reviews and radio broadcasts that serve a general audience. WP:ABOUTSELF applies to some of the citations: self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves so long as they do not involve claims about third parties. In such cases the subject is Hagger, not a third party. Some of the newspaper articles about the historic house Hagger once ran (please note yet again, not since 2004) are primarily about the books, for example one of the several two-page spreads ‘Overlord of the Manor’ has pictures of two early volumes of Overlord and three columns about the work. Hagger can sell 10,000 in US hardback and give 25 live radio interviews to the US, and his books are in translation in Russian, Portuguese, Spanish and other languages. The Polish version of The Syndicate was received last week. Hundreds of copies of The Secret Founding of America are in libraries. Hagger is not ignored. The sources include reviews of his writings. His main philosophy work did not come out until 2009 and now people have had a chance to read it requests are coming in for talks. Fladrif gives a sweeping and misleading impression of Hagger on the strength of one trawl and does not mention the million internet results for less than a quarter of his books, more than 106,000 results for The Syndicate and 323,000 results for the Secret Founding of America – totals that hardly suggest being ignored. Spartaz reinstated this article, and the facts suggest that it is not all as cut and dried as Fladrif implies. Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, regardless of what Spartaz may say. A close examination of such sources as one can examine for this article- most of them are unverifiable for lack of proper citation form - shows that they do not constitute multiple, significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject by independent secondary sources. The subject talking about himself does not constitute notability. Private correspondence does not constitute notability. Dust jacket blurb does not establish notability. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims by his publicist on talk pages at Wikipedia - even if every word is true - does not constitute notability. Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see evidence of notability as a writer; reports on Otley Hall perhaps document the potential notability of the building, and might justify the subject's mention in any article on it, but there is not enough to justify a standalone BLP. Note that a number of the sources lack titles (e.g. " The Times, 3 October 1970, p12, three columns"). --JN466 06:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at present I can't see any evidence to indicate that the GNG is met for this author. In short - as far as I can tell, this is the first place where anyone has written about Hagger's life and work, which is not the purpose of wikipedia, since we are a tertiary source which should report on what others have written. A major problem is that the article has been heavily edited by his publicist - while never a reason to delete in itself, it makes it very hard for us to determine the significance of the sources that are referenced, particularly when they do not even provide a title for the reference. If evidence could be provided via email, to demonstrate that articles have been written specifically about this author, rather than his house, then I would be willing to reconsider, but until then, I'm not happy to !vote to keep this article, which is a poorly sourced BLP. SmartSE (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Jayen466 asked me to have a look at this. SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability hasn't been demonstrated, suggest userfy while author finds atleast one reliable source that demonstrates notability without question. Szzuk (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Articles with a smoke screen of plausible looking references can be difficult cases. There are an awful lot of claims here which are just not substantiated. I don't think they are outright false, just exaggerated; I suppose, for instance, there is some queer tortured sense in which he was "the first Westerner to discover the cultural revolution", but it hardly matters. These claims are not, as far as we can tell, verifiable, and should be rooted out. Once removed, there's not much left. One of his works might have gotten independent coverage and might be notable in itself, but this doesn't make enough to base an author bio on. (And whether that work really is notable is another open AfD.) --WTFITS (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD was supposed to end at 22.06 on Friday February 4 when by my count there were 4 keeps and 2 deletes. The time was extended to allow the nominator, DC, to bring in Fladrif (see DC’s appeal for a third opinion on WP:ABOUTSELF in relation to the Overlord (epic poem) page). After 22.06 (at 23.37) Fladrif posted his delete regarding this article. Later he stated that Admin Spartaz had been wrong and deleted 21 of the 51 sources in this article, including notability ones to do with writings about the books, prompting deletes from new editors who understandably believed that these sources do not exist. In a court of law the evidence is laid before the court, two-fifths is not deleted before the jury can assess it. It is odd that one of the deletes is by a user (JN466) who was the first to vote for DC in the first AfD, and asked SmartSE to “have a look”. Five weeks of one-man continuous personal attack ended on February 4, and the turn of events on February 5 and 6 is disquieting and may have resulted in no consensus.

The issue is whether five-fifths (not three-fifths) of the sources indicate notability and can be improved. I have to say, I do not understand why more attention is not paid to the translations of Hagger’s books into several languages. Perhaps it is a shortcoming in WP guidelines that more is not made of translations. I do want to do further work on the sources, and there is more work to be done on Hagger’s appointment as tutor of Prince Hitachi, which falls within notability. Some of the points that have been made are easily addressed. The Times article on 3 October 1970 was entitled ‘The war against racialism’, p.12. It appeared 29 years before the internet and a way needs to be found to make such pre- or extra-internet material readable online, including the account in Encounter of how Hagger was told by a student at Peking University in March 1966 that all the students had been sent out to the countryside for socialist re-education, the first whiff of the Cultural Revolution which broke in August. (Detail not appropriate in the article.) It is particularly surprising that the deleted sources include a six-page published letter by Ted Hughes about Hagger’s early works.

In my experience, there are WP users who are constructive and genuinely want to evolve a better article. There are also users who seem to want to delete at all costs, regardless of the article. There have been procedural irregularities regarding the Overlord (Epic Poem) site where the nominator, DC, deleted two of the four sources (on Ted Hughes and Ezra Pound) three times between Feb 1 and 3 and when I reinstated them between Feb 2 and 4 so that the jury could consider all the evidence, posted a warning on my talk page saying that I had been engaged in an edit-war and might be blocked. As a result I could not log in for a while. Meanwhile Fladrif conceded that the Pound source was allowable but denied that the Hughes source qualified under WP:ABOUTSELF, still a moot point. Given the circumstances, this procedure from another editor was unfair. Procedure aside, the main issue is the 51 sources (see history page 11:34, 3 February 2011 for deleted sources) and how they can be improved. It is hard to discuss improvement if they are no longer at the end of the article because one person feels they should not be there. Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrac1959, it likely would not be helpful for me to address your misunderstandings, but let me suggest that your accusations are not helping your case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only deleted sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable sources, most particularly unpublished or self-published ones which cannot be verified. There are others that I have left alone for now, such as the various newspaper articles which are only identified by date. Title, page and author are the bare minimums required for proper citation. I have been unable to turn up any of them though at least the Times articles should turn up on Lexis/Nexis (must be doing something wrong). Fully a third of the citations remaining are to various articles in a small local newspaper, which according to WorldCat is only archived at the British Library - making it pretty much impossible for anyone to verify. Such papers are generally considered as inadequate to establish notability of a subject.Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sanrac1959 has offered to email me some sources, so can I suggest we wait until these are provided before this discussion is closed? SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. As I noted above, the lack of proper citation makes it impossible to even locate what article is supposedly being referenced, even for those papers like the Times which has archives accessible through Lexis/Nexis. EADT is only archived at the British Library, so there is no way for anyone to confirm, absent going there in person. Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am particularly curious because, searching the Times archive, I found only one article with Hagger's byline (not one of the ones cited), and no hits corresponding to the various Times articles which are cited as having been written by him. I know that the Times only started adding bylines to articles gradually during the 1970's, and so it would not suprise me if he wrote or contributed to some articles for which he was not credited. If that's the case, however, we have no reliable source to verify that he actually did no. We shall see. Fladrif (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will email these to SmartSE tomorrow. Sanrac1959 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - minor conspiracy theorist, self-promoter, poet and fictionist who fails WP:AUTHOR. The more closely you look at the "substantive" sources he and his press agent and fan(s) keep pointing to, the less substantive they appear. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG itself. If you look at the sources, none of them are actually sources regarding him. It's just a list of pages that have no way to be verified and some paywall sites. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. If we can't check it, it's not verified, and this, this person fails the GNG. The East Anglican Daily Times, which has 6 different articles cited, only has two references to him on their website, one of which is about him selling his house. The Telegraph, which has 5 different articles listed as sources, only has one mention of him on their website, once again about the house. The Times, listed with three articles, has no mentions whatsoever. Delete for failing GNG.--Fbifriday (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Fbifriday above. Google search uncovers no third-party coverage of him, no evidence of any impact at all. There isn't any evidence that he is notable. Perchloric (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, Orange Mike, and Fbifriday. We're also still waiting for the promised e-mails from Sanrac1959 and a comment on the authenticity of David Lomer's apparent book acket-only review. Attempts by Sanrac to discredit Delicious Carbuncle (who BTW is not an admin, but a regular Wikipedian) are unfounded and misplaced. There has to be a limit on the time we can keep this AfD open waiting for Sanrac. Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sanrac has emailed me copies of 56 (!) documents. I'll try to digest what they are: some articles for newspapers he wrote (no use for establishing notability), photographs and notes etc. (again no help as it'd be OR to do anything with these), a lot of articles about a book he wrote which collected the quotes of Arthur Scargill, but nothing about him - only passing mentions in articles about the quotes contained, a fair few of articles about Otley Hall, which as I think we've determined is notable, but again no use for determining his notability. Again, as we had aleady pretty much determined, there are a couple of articles in the EADT, that are specifically about him, all written by the same journalist, but I'm fairly sure that we don't consider every person covered in local press to be notable as there are so many people we could potentially include. All in all, I'm afraid that the references I've seen, are not sufficient to establish notability so I'm not able to change my original !vote of delete. It's a closer call than I thought it might be, but I still think that deletion is the best route. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did SmartSE have a look, as suggested, at the WP article on Elizabeth Gray Vining, which is almost exclusively about her appointment as tutor by the Japanese Imperial Household for three years, and assess the degree of notability conferred by Hagger’s appointment by the Japanese Imperial Household as tutor to Prince Hitachi for a similar length of time? The book on Scargill was in two parts: sayings and analysis. There are review articles about this book, but I was responding to the inability of many to find articles by Hagger or about Hagger’s pre-internet work on the internet, and establishing that it exists. The images have verified the sources.

WP:BASIC holds that multiple independent sources may be combined, and a combination of the articles about Hagger’s books through interviews at Otley Hall and about his role in the miners’ strike, added to his tutoring of Prince Hitachi, the deleted in-depth studies by Sebastian Barker and Bennett Freeman, and the deleted letter by Ted Hughes, which constitutes a valid secondary source now it has been published in The Letters of Ted Hughes, collectively make a case for a degree of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanrac1959 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough I haven't looked at every of the 3.5 million articles we have to see that other stuff exists and quite frankly it is irrelevant. I think you're confusing what notability means - it means that someone has taken note of his activities. This obituary shows the NYT did take note of Vining so we can have an article on her. That you can provide photos of Hagger with a Japanese prince doesn't mean anything at all, unless other people have taken note of it. As we've now established, the only sources which have addressed him are local newspapers which are not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrac1959 makes reference to Hagger's book about Scargill ("Scargill the Stalinist?: The Communist Role in the 1984 Miners' Strike"). It should be noted that this was a self-published work. Delicious carbuncle 14:07, 8 February 2011 (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.