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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Moles[edit]

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

Prod cancelled by single-purpose account editor, and article probably deserves full AFD anyway. The strengthened claim to notability seems to be that this poet won a local newspaper poetry competition. Offline sources cited here were not considered sufficient at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Annus Horribilis Project, most of the article remains uncited analysis of the writer's work, most references are to blogs. TheGrappler (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and ultimately there's just no notability here. There really isn't any in-depth and substantial coverage of him and/or his work in any reliable and independent sources. His works seem to have predominantly been posted in various non-notable blogs, but even if it wasn't none of his work seem to fit any of the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE. He's not an important figure in the poetry world and he isn't widely cited. He hasn't made a new concept, theory, or technique that's considered notable. None of his works are particularly notable, nor has any of it been made into a notable film. None of his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, nor has his work made it into several notable galleries or museums. As for the award, a poetry award for the Chelmsford Weekly News does not seem to be big or notable enough to warrant a keep. There's claims that he acted in various things and that he co-wrote a film that screened at a festival, but it all pretty much boils down to the fact that there isn't anything out there in reliable sources to show that he's ultimately notable and passes WP:CREATIVE, let alone WP:GNG.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The strengthened claim to notability is based on mentions of further achievements in writing, music and film. None are particularly celebrated, but their inclusion fleshes out the claim to notability based on the development of a new technique (tragicomic physical metaphors). An edit of the article to reflect this focus (on the style rather than the subject) is perhaps a minimum requirement. Further sources would also be welcome, but the existing ones can't be described as completely non-notable (Pif Magazine is one of the oldest, continually published literary webzines, for example).1meme2 —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Tokyogirl79; there are a few scraps of notability here but nothing that adds up to meeting the WP:GNG. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (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.