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 KEEP. While the article needs improvement, the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire[edit]

W. H. Pugmire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)</small[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Pernoctus, what you're ignoring here is that within the community that encompasses Lovecraftian authorship, scholarship, and fandom, it is almost inevitable that people will eventually become acquaintances, friends and even collaborators. It would make no sense to reduce someone to non-notable status once they become friends with the major experts in the field, claiming that one could no longer find unbiased references. GCL (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am Julia Morgan, better known on the internet as MorganScorpion. It is true that I am a friend of W H Pugmire, but I became his friend because I am a fan of his work, and Mr Pugmire has always been very kind to his fans. He has been publishing stories in a Lovecraftian vein for at least 15 years. I am providing a few links that may provide evidence as to why his Wikipedia page should not be deleted. The first is a link to S T Joshi's online autobiography. http://www.stjoshi.org/biography.html

The second is a link to an Amazon page detailing books written by W H Pugmire. http://www.amazon.com/W.-H.-Pugmire/e/B002CQONYO

The third is an interview published in The Arkham Gazette. http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html

Even a casual search of the internet will throw up countless articles about and by Mr Pugmire who is extremely well-thought of in the Lovecraftian community; not just for his stories, but for his kindness and graciousness to budding authors, artists and creative people of all kinds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganScorpian (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely know I will not write this note correctly, because I don't edit Wikipedia as you guys do (just use it frequently!). I'm the publisher of "Lovecraft eZine", which is a very popular online magazine. I say that not to pat myself on the back, but just to make it clear that I'm very much a member of the Lovecraftian community, and many in that community look to me for my opinions on HPL, etc. Anyway: W.H. Pugmire is one of the most revered authors in said Lovecraftian community. He has also been called "the world's greatest living Lovecraftian writer" by MANY. He has published many Lovecraftian books. Any other specific questions, please ask and I'll do my best to answer. -- Mike Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.77.38 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Lovecraft scholar of note, but I AM a Lovecraft fan, and have been for over 20 years. I have never met WH Pugmire, nor do I know him personally, but I CAN attest that he is one of THE best Lovecraft-inspired writers in the industry today. I read, watch, listen to, study anything and everything I can find that is Lovecraft related, and it would be a shame to delete this page. If you have any doubts as to his writing ability, and his place on Wikipedia, I urge you to please read some of his work and judge for yourself. As a Lovecraft aficionado, I can tell you that the horror community LOVES Pugmire, and strongly feel he should remain featured on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your kind consideration! Sabella M Hess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.14.54 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a friend of W.H. Pugmire. I’ve never met him. Also, I have never been to Seattle. I am a 43-year-old advertising copywriter, aspiring screenwriter, and a Lovecraft enthusiast. I have been collecting and reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft and those authors who made up the Lovecraft Circle since I was a teenager. I also actively collect and read the works of the many contemporary authors who write Lovecraftian/weird fiction – magazines, anthologies, novels and so on. W.H. Pugmire is probably the most significant Lovecraftian author alive today. His impact on the genre is tremendous. These are big statements, I know, but they are true. I don’t know what more I can say on the subject. - Bill Barnett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.52.14 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not limit the scope of information provided by Wikipedia!

Few (if any) have captured Lovecraft's dark aesthetic like Pugmire. Perhaps those outside the Lovecraftian 'circle' are less familiar with his work, but since when has Wikipedia been an exclusive club? It's strength lies in its broadness of scope. Removing Pugmire would limit the depth of knowledge Wikipedia provides about Lovecraft, his influences and those he has influenced. In short, the information you provide would be incomplete. You would be hard pressed to find a better and more highly regarded Lovecraftian writer alive today. In fact, I would encourage you to read his work before making any decision about this article. A few choice stories and a closer look at the modern Lovecraft circle would undoubtedly convince you to retain this article.

Wikipedia is valuable because it is (normally) inclusive and because it encourages thoroughness in all its articles. Pugmire is an extremely influential author, and a mainstay of the modern Lovecraft circle. Removing his entry would provide users of your tool with an obviously incomplete picture. JasonERolfe (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Jason Rolfe[reply]

Pugmire's work has also recently been selected by notable weird fiction editor and critic (S.T. Joshi) for inclusion in an upcoming hardcover book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.63.118 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, when you're dealing with a niche subject matter such as the Lovecraftian field, in which many notables know each other personally due to the field's size limitations and general tradition of camraderie, it seems counterproductive to discard noted opinions and documentation of someone's career simply due to the collegial relationship of the person stating the material. So far as my own authority pertains to the discussion, my name is Michelle Y. Souliere. I am an independent blog and print editor, published author, artist, and bookshop owner operating on the mere fringes of the Lovecraftian field, and even I know of Pugmire's reputation, and have for some years. Please excuse any errors in protocol here -- this is the first time I've had need to engage in one of these discussions. Misfitgirl (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT- My name is Mark McLemore, and I just recently became a fan of W.H. Pugmire's work. Where can I find a list of his works so I may read more? Wikipedia. Great. WHAT? There is no reference to W.H. Pugmire on Wikipedia. 

       I did this comment to show how Wikipedia is used for finding such information. I am thankful I can look up many things on here. The moniker I have heard for the years of Wikipedia is "The Free Online Encyclopedia". Well, let's take that at face value and keep adding to the work here.  Just because someone sees it as free advertisement, it is actually a great place to find information leading to other works by published authors. This alone should allow the page to remain. I believe there should be some citations set as to who you are Pernoctus to come to start this debate. Who are you? What are your credentials? And furthermore, who really cares?  I mean, as far as I know, you could be some envious or wrathful person seeking to restrain others from furthering their knowledge of Mr. Pugmire. We don't know, because you offer no citations. Seriously, Pernoctus, WHO ARE YOU? Should you be someone I should be worried about if I become a published author and wish to put my works up for others to find? You are quick to cite evidence why the page should be taken, however, you lack any depth to reason with. You almost sound like someone with a fake name who likes to start arguments. Then again, who am I? I am just a reader and a hobby writer. I have read a few works by the author for whom this debate was begun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Mclemore1973 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a testament to the enduring power of the childish bigots to damage ALL aspects of public knowledge that this discussion even needs to take place. I personally would request that whoever has moderator authority over this issue do the following: 1) Close this discussion immediately, 2) remove the "Deletion" notice from the page of an author and critic whose "Notability" is beyond all question, because it is an EMBARRASSMENT to Wikipedia and to the community of Lovecraft and weird fiction scholarship, 3) Ban the person who created this problem from having any further power to edit, vandalize, or otherwise damage Mr. Pugmire's page.

Wikipedia is a public trust, not a bathroom wall for bigots to scrawl their imbecilic hatred upon. This whole affair is inexcusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.41.198 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wilum Pugmire, gifted with a richly evocative prose style, has produced noteworthy short specimens in such works as Dreams of Lovecraftian Horror (1999) and The Fungal Stain (2006)." Excerpt from the entry "The Cthulhu Mythos", by S. T. Joshi, page 123 in ICONS OF HORROR AND THE SUPERNATURAL. An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares. Volume 1. Edited by S. T. Joshi, Westport, Connecticut - London, Greenwood Press, 2007. ISBN 0-313-33780-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaBonazzi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with maintaining Pugmire's page? He's a talented writer with a relatively small fan base. Wikipedia shouldn't be a popularity contest! It should be a source of information.98.93.155.70 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WHYN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't help wondering if this is not more a comment on Mr. Pugmire's sexual orientation than on whether he's "famous enough" for Wikipedia - as in, would this page even be up for deletion if it were a page for an equally well-known straight Mythos author? The suggestions for deletion, on top of their belittling and ignorant attitude toward Mythos fiction in general, give off just the faintest whiff of homophobia. All things considered, I think Wikipedia would be better off erring on the side of inclusion, if only to avoid the question of whether it's choosing to marginalize authors that don't fit certain editors' extremely narrow worldviews. Paula R. Stiles —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations and personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia's civility policies. There is zero evidence that this has anything to do with anyone's sexuality. This type of thing does not help you keep the article. Rather, displaying a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and the use of fallacious reasoning undermines your own credibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fungal Stain and Others (Hippocampus Press, 2006, 978-0977173433) The Strange Dark One (Miskatonic River Press, 2012, 978-0982181898) Weird Inhabitants of Sesqua Valley, CreateSpace 2009, 978-1448699544) Gathered Dust and Others (Dark Regions Press, 2012, B00AGAZK22) The Tangled Muse (Centipede Press, 2010, 978-1933618784) Sesqua Valley and Other Haunts (Mythos Books, 2008, 978-0978991142)\ Uncommon Places, A Collection of Exquisites (Hippocampus Press, 2012) Some Unknown Gulf of Night (Arcane Wisdom, 2011, 978-1935006114)

These are all professional publications, not self published. It does not attempt to include his short fiction included in other anthologies. In the current Lovecraft circle he holds at least as important a place as Robert Price, Ramsey Campbell or ST Joshi. - Matthew Carpenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.132.211 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, though, is that the "do not delete" voters appear not to grasp Wikipedia's notability standards. If they did, then they would understand that merely being a well-known local personality and a popular figure among fan fiction aficionados, with multiple non-professional publication credits, is not enough to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines that term. The suggested databases for establishing notability--JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the like--should offer an idea of what sort of outside recognition is required.
S.T. Joshi's testimony might be probative, if he hadn't appeared in videos such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZAORWEFH4. In any case, and as another commentator has indicated, Joshi's praise alone does not establish the subject's notability.
As Dennis_Bratland summarizes, "There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC."
In essence, all that is offered in support of the subject's notability are a gaggle of anecdotes about the subject's high standing in a relatively small community of fandom and small/vanity horror presses, spiced with a few rants that fail even to make an attempt at rational argument, and falsely accuse me of bias (and hover perilously close to libel in doing so).
To summarize: Nothing in the above series of "do not delete" votes has convinced me to change my mind. This is a non-notable author who is published and touted only in the small press, or by print-on-demand outfits such as Hippocampus, via a reciprocal chain of promotion. For this reason, the article should be deleted at the earliest opportunity.Pernoctus (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilum has appeared in small presses AND large commercial ones. He has stories in:

Book of Cthulhu (Night Shade Books) Children of Cthulhu (Del Rey Books) The Recent Weird (Prime Books, 2011) Future Lovecraft (Originally Innsmouth Free Press, reprinted by Prime Books 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC) \[reply]

I find some of the delete viewpoints deeply problematical. There seems to be a lot of subjective goalpost-changing going on. First, there is the complaint that Pugmire isn't important enough (Really, so all those people listed on Wikipedia who are famous mainly for having killed someone are important now?). When posters gave references showing that Pugmire was quite well-known in his field, and therefore "notable," the complaints change to the lack of academic sources and Pugmire's allegedly localized celebrity. Unfortunately, the objectivity is marred by the classification of some sources as being "fan works" unsuitable for sourcing on Wikipedia. This classification is vague, emotive and not at all academically rigorous. Before you can dismiss a source as a "non-notable" "fan work," you first need to define what that is and how that applies to the page at hand, which that commenter failed to do. In short, the criterion for a good source here seems to be whatever the commenter and his friends believe it is, based on their own interests.

And the complaints that the posters arguing against deletion don't understand Wikipedia rules for validation are rather amusing. Academics target Wikipedia as a place of poor scholarship (which, I'll grant you, isn't universally fair) specifically because Wikipedia's criteria are so arbitrary and so much can be put up on its pages with little or no attribution. That's what happens when anybody can contribute. Yet, a well-known genre author suddenly has to have references to his fame that are suitable for an academic press or his page will be deleted? Why is that? And why the denigration of the preeminent Lovecraft scholar, S.T. Joshi, as some kind of Pugmire fanboy? That's going to make the sourcing on the Lovecraft page very iffy, should you choose to follow that argument to its logical conclusion.

If you really want to present this as an argument for deletion due to lack of appropriate attribution, then set out specific guidelines that have some authoritative basis somewhere (cited properly, of course) and stick to them. What's required? Print sources? What kind? Pro sales? How many? Appearances in Google News? How far back? And how do these rules correlate with how other author pages are judged? If you're going to claim that the page doesn't follow Wikipedia rules, then how about listing the rules it doesn't follow and how it, specifically, doesn't follow them instead of mocking the newer posters as newbies who don't understand the rules? Otherwise, the comments of "Nope, not convinced" are, shall we say, very unconvincing.

For example, it is not at all clear why articles like this interview from Lovecraft News Network: http://lovecraftnewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/09/lnn-interviews-author-wh-pugmire.html or this one from Motley Vision: www.motleyvision.org/2010/pugmire-interview/ or this one from the Arkham Digest: http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html are dismissed as self-promotion or fanlove, or chats with friends. Nor is it clear why his extensive bibliography (as here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?11256) makes him not good enough for Wikipedia. The man hasn't been self-publishing all these years. He is indisputably a noted pro horror writer, even important enough to appear prominently in Horror Writers Association press releases: http://stokers2012.lisamorton.com/spress.html.

A far better approach would be to suggest that the page needs improvement without getting into the sticky thicket of whether or not Pugmire "deserves" a Wikipedia page (these being two different issues, anyway). I think there would be much more support for a product that is worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia site, if improvement were suggested over deletion, rather than the current argument started due to arbitrarily deciding to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were. Paula R. Stiles

You've been given links to Wikipedia's guidelines, but everyone is falling over themselves to rush to their keyboards to bang out long speeches, instead of taking the time to click on the links and read. The main one to understand is Wikipedia:Notability. What is a reliable source? Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and especially note WP:SPS. Are there specific guidelines for a writer and critic? Yes. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), more specifically, WP:AUTHOR and Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Excellent advice can be found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions.

The publications everyone is citing are wonderful, but Wikipedia's community consensus is to draw the line for sources demonstrating notability above that of amateur and fan works. They need to be serious academic journals, national level media, or books from major publishers.

All these words by fans of Pugmire aren't going to help; you have to first understand the guidelines and cite sources that clearly meet those requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand what is being said here, unless you are Stephen King, Daniel Steele, Dan Brown or Shakespeare, you shouldn't be a writer covered on Wikipedia. Also, will we be deleting the pages for the books that most people haven't heard of? Whatever the guidelines may be, I would think it goes against the spirit of the site to say that we won't have information about someone that isn't quite as famous as other writers because they aren't as famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.177.59 (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I do want to make clear is that I studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines very carefully and performed several database searches before I posted both the "notability" tag--which was an invitation to interested parties to improve the article--and the request for deletion. I wanted, and I still want, to be fair to the subject. The unfortunate but unavoidable conclusion, however, is that he and his work do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Of course, some relatively obscure writers do meet the guidelines--Malcolm de Chazal comes immediately to mind--but this person does not.
Not surprisingly, some here have tried to "move the goal post" by making the discussion about the validity of Wikipedia and its standards, or their alleged misapplication. I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately for the latter, however, "notability" according to Wikipedia does not mean that, and my use of that term has always been in the sense that Wikipedia intends.
If articles such as this one are allowed to stand, then what is next? Un-deletable pages devoted to the most popular authors of Harry Potter or Twilight fan fiction? Unlike others here, I am not trying to tell Wikipedia what its standards should be. I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's standards in their current form by requesting the deletion of an article that clearly does not meet them. Unless Wikipedia intends to expand its definition of notability to include recognition by the amateur press, bloggers, and the like, it should take a strong stand and delete articles such as this one.Pernoctus (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Doubleday an amateur press? Is Tor an amateur press? Is Daw Books an amateur press? Because Pugmire has been published in those presses, which are all large, commercial presses. Anthologies that he has appeared in (Black Wings, Book of Cthulhu) have been reviewed and mentioned in places like Wire http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/09/the-cthulhu-sized-cthulhu-books-review/ Why, his name is on the cover of Book of Cthulhu I and II, right next to Neil Gaiman and Ramsey Campbell. As far as dismissing him as a fan fiction writer, this shows little understanding of the Lovecraftian writing community. Ramsey Campbell started off writing Lovecraftian stories and then went on to write some other stuff, becoming a well-known horror novelist. Laird Barron has written many Lovecrafian stories and one of his collections won the Shirley Jackson Award. Elizabeth Bear won a Hugo Award for Best Novelette for "Shoggoths in Bloom", a Lovecraftian story. If you are going to dismiss all Lovecraftian inspired stories and authors, you need to delete entries for Thomas Ligotti and Caitlín Rebekah Kiernan, who are also notable Lovecraftian writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having a handful of stories published in anthologies that contain works by truly notable writers--as opposed to the bulk of this writer's corpus, which appears mainly in small fandom editions--does not establish notability. For instance, the story published by Doubleday is in such an anthology, and is not even the sole work of the subject; it is co-written. The story in the DAW anthology was edited by a friend of Pugmire's, Karl Edward Wagner, about whom Pugmire has written, "Karl was extremely supportive when I was a young beginning writer, and I loved him for his kindness and generosity as an editor." http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/525599-karl-edward-wagner-thoughts.html.
2. Further, such publications alone do not establish notability. From the Wikipedia notability guidelines: "Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page." In other words, not only must the subject be considered notable by those outside fandom, and outside his personal circle of friends and admirers, but he also must be considered notable by those outside the publishing industry, e.g., by critics and reviewers in major, reputable publications.Pernoctus (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Pugmire's case, that doesn't, at least yet, seem to be there - though, in one way, the [Horror Writers of America]] press release mentioned in a comment above, announcing a Bram Stoker Award for one of Pugmire's publishers, comes tantalisingly close. However, it is in practice unusable for several reasons - Pugmire is only mentioned in passing (even if in a list with ten other authors, nine of whom have Wikipedia articles), press releases are in practice only regarded as reliable on Wikipedia as an expression of the releaser's opinion (though the HWA's opinion of who has won a Bram Stoker Award is definitive), and this copy of the press release is not from the HWA's website but from a personal one (though this point might be arguable as the person concerned had apparently been appointed by the HWA to organise that year's Bram Stoker Awards ceremony). If Pugmire himself had won the Award, we would pretty definitely assume he was notable just because of that - unfortunately, he hasn't, at least yet.
So we are back to critical notice from reliable sources by Wikipedia standards - of the material now in the article, I still judge S. T. Joshi to be a reliable source but quotes should be cited and from what are intended as scholarly works, the Publishers Weekly quote may be usable (but there are often differences of opinion in deletion discussions about whether a PW review counts toward notability) if it was cited from Publishers Weekly rather than from the Hippocampus Press website (even if a company is notable, its website is only reliable for direct facts - such as author, title, ISBN - about its publications, not critical reaction), but the other quotes can only really count towards notability if they are from (and can be cited back to) reviews in reliable sources - and quotes apparently produced for use in blurbs would never count as reliable.
Finally, this deletion could look distinctly stupid in twenty, or even two, years' time if Pugmire has meanwhile won major awards, achieved even mid-list status as an author or received significant (and quite likely deserved) critical attention - as Wikipedia would do now if articles on H. P. Lovecraft or August Derleth had been deleted during their lifetimes (as, by Wikipedia's current standards, they might well have been). But Wikipedia does not try to guess the future - so we are where we are. Also, Wikipedia could be undervaluing the reliability of some of the Lovecraft community's internal news or critical publications, print or online. But if so, that is probably for a more general discussion - and would need at the very least some evidence that at least some outside reliable sources (news, literary, academic, whatever) were from time to time picking up on them. PWilkinson (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate PWilkinson's input. In response, let me reiterate that I am not trying to be over-stringent. I am simply trying to present the opposite side of the case, so that those who finally decide the issue can do so from the broadest perspective. The mention of the relationship with Wagner, for instance, is not absolutely disqualifying, I agree, but it ought to be noted. By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability. On the other hand, I think it is a point in Pugmire's favor--though not a strong enough one for me to change my mind regarding deletion--that Harvard's library owns a copy of one of Pugmire's Hippocampus short story collections.
For the rest, the key point is "recognition beyond a given community of fans". One person alludes to Ramsey Campbell as having begun his career as a Lovecraft imitator, but what matters is that Campbell quickly outgrew this phase. His subsequent acclaim was for fiction produced outside fandom, and for work published by major publishers. Likewise, a book such as Fifty Shades of Grey rapidly outgrew its narrow origins and became a popular culture phenomenon. When something similar happens with Pugmire's output, then I will happily withdraw my objections. But, as PWilkinson rightly observes, Pugmire is not there yet, and at present his work does not merit a Wikipedia entry, still less one of the length and detail it currently has.Pernoctus (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability." - So, you're stating that Joshi is a poor scholar, since he allows his critical faculty to be over ridden by personal sentiment? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.169.94 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to ascertain Pugmire's "notability" by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries, then we should note that: "The Children of Cthulhu" is held by Yale's Sterling Memorial Library, "The Book of Cthulhu" by the University of Baltimore's Langsdale Library, "Cutting Edge" by William Paterson University of New Jersey's David and Lorraine Cheng Library, the City College / CUNY, Queens College's Benjamin Rosenthal Library, and Adelphi University's Swirbul Library, "Black Wings" by Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library, Harvard University's Harvard College Library, and the University of Virginia, "The Fungal Stain" by Harvard University's Harvard College Library, the University of Michigan, and Texas A&M University, and "New Cthulhu : The Recent Weird" by Hamilton College's Daniel Burke Library. Pugmire's "Sesqua Valley & Other Haunts" is held in the University of Michigan's library (itself an institution known for its literary scholasticism). "The Tangled Muse," a retrospective compilation of W.H. Pugmire's work, is part of the University of Denver's Penrose Library collection. Pugmire's fiction is referenced in literary scholar Michael Ashley's "The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, and Weird Literature," reviewed in Robert A. Collins' "Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual," discussed in Daniel Harms' "The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror," and Cosette N. Kies' "Supernatural Fiction for Teens: More Than 1300 Good Paperbacks to Read for Wonderment, Fear, and Fun." I'd also like to point out that I serve as an intern at Hippocampus Press, a widely-respected publisher of not solely Lovecraftian literature, but books of literary scholarship and criticism by such international luminaries as Messimo Berruti (professor of Semiotics of Art & Literature, narratology, and Interpretative Semiotics at the University of Helsinki, author of "Dim-Remembered Stories"), S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated), Douglas A. Anderson (the world's foremost expert on textual issues in Tolkien, editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal "Tolkien Studies," co-editor of Barlow's poetry), Stefan Dziemianowicz (a senior editor at Barnes & Noble), Jim Rockhill (one of the most knowledgeable and well-respected scholars of J.S. LeFanu), Gary William Crawford (contributor to the "The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural," author of bio-bibliographies of Ramsey Campbell, Robert Aickman, J.S. LeFanu, and others), among countless others. Hippocampus Press is the leading publisher of the corrected texts & scholarly editions of Lovecraft's works, including the whole of his letters, fiction, essays, and soon, poetry, and should not be dismissed as a "vanity press" or a "print-on-demand" publishing imprint/outfit. Hippocampus Press utilizes the same printing and binding services as Ingram, a major provider of books and content to libraries and bookstores. 68.196.217.23 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Michael J. Abolafia[reply]
"If we are to ascertain Pugmire's 'notability' by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries"
We aren't, actually. We are to assess Pugmire's notability by using the criteria of Wikipedia as they currently stand. I merely mentioned library ownership in the interest of fairness and objectivity. I also mentioned that it is not enough to make Pugmire a notable subject.
"S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated)". I assume the intended term is "overstated", but the statement is accurate as it stands.
As to Hippocampus, no one is "dismissing" it as a print-on-demand press. That fact is mentioned because, well, it is a fact, and not a mere statement of opinion (such as, for instance, "Hippocampus is a widely-respected publisher"). As such, that fact ought to be considered in the discussion, for individuals to weigh as they choose.Pernoctus (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pernoctus, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to some of the points raised in my last brief missive. I examined carefully the author standards criteria enacted and upheld by Wikipedia, and fail to see precisely where W.H. Pugmire falls short:
——1.) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Nobody would argue against this, Pernoctus. This has been amply defended, and I imagine you would not contend the validity and/or extent of Pugmire's influence, even if it is largely within one "niche" area of literature. "Tales of Lovecraftian Horror," a magazine Wilum edited in the 80s and 90s, published fiction by writers like Thomas Ligotti, Donald R. Burleson, Robert Price, Michael Cisco, Darrell Schweitzer, Gary Myers, Peter Cannon, Richard Gavin, and Joseph S. Pulver, Sr. This is also noteworthy, I think.

——2.)"The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications."

The phrase "major news agencies or publications" presents an ambiguity that raises some thorny issues. Pugmire has been "the subject of" articles in such publications as Seattle's "The Stranger" (one of its largest newspapers) and "The Seattle Times" (see: "Ghost Writers -- Seattle's Horror-Fiction Authors Find Our Region's Gloomy Days Nourish Their Creative Spirits") -- these have already been noted. He has contributed letters and editorials to "The Seattle Weekly," was cited/acknowledged in the article "Supernatural Verse in English" by Steve Eng, and has a not insubstantial role in a recent documentary on Forrest J Ackerman (an "expert source," arguably).

——3.) "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Wilum Pugmire's Sesqua Valley, a fictional locale situated in the Pacific Northwest, is considered by the Lovecraft community at large to be among the most significant and original contributions to Lovecraftian literature in recent times. Pugmire's fictional country was referenced in the Darkest of the Hillside Thickets's song "Six-Gun Gorgon Dynamo," and lauded in "The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror," ed. Ellen Datlow.

——4.) "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

No question that he has played a major role in creating a significant or well-known collective body of work. His books have been reviewed by "multiple independent periodicals," including Asimov's (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0409/onbooks.shtml), Fantasy Magazine (http://www.fantasy-magazine.com/reviews/weird-inhabitants-pugmire/), The New York Review of Science Fiction (October 2011), Publishers Weekly, etc. There is no dearth of professional reviews of Pugmire's writings.

——5.) "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Wilum fits option (c) here; he has certainly won "significant critical attention," as his books have been reviewed favorably in the venues indicated (as well as dozens of others, probably more, unknown to me), discussed by scholar S.T. Joshi, and has won/been nominated for a number of notable awards. I understand that you have some questions regarding the validity of S.T. Joshi's scholarship, which I can somewhat understand, seeing as he's Wilum's personal friend, although your concerns are not wholly valid. Jeffrey Thomas, for instance, was roundly lambasted by Joshi in one of his critical commentaries, despite the two being on relatively friendly terms. Joshi is a critic and scholar first and foremost -- at least, this is my impression of him. More later. Thanks again for the interesting dialogue.68.196.217.23 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Michael J. Abolafia[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful advocacy. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that Pugmire's work fails the following summarized test of notability: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." As I mentioned in a previous comment, I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately, it does not. Most of the sources you cite merely reaffirm the impression that Pugmire is simply a local celebrity and a denizen of Lovecraft fandom. One day, Wikipedia's standards may be changed to include such persons. As matters stand, however, the standards do not allow such an interpretation today, in my view. Pernoctus (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Absolutely noteworthy. Do not delete. The continual denigration of fanzines and fandom on Wikipedia flies in the face of the best evidence that a substantial number of notable writers, artists and musicians included in this very encyclopedia all began their careers in fanzines: Donald Wollheim, Frederik Pohl. Damon Knight, Judith Merril, James Blish, and all the Futurians, Ray Bradbury, Forrest J Ackerman, Julius Schwartz, Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, Lee Hoffman, Michael Moorcock, Poul Anderson, Karen Kruse Anderson, George R.R. Martin, Charles de Lint, Robert Price, Jessica Amanda Salmonson, William Gibson, Greg Shaw, Robert Eggplant, G.B. Jones, Kathleen Hanna, Allison Wolfe, Molly Neuman, Tobi Vail, Aaron Cometbus, to name just a few - this is a small selection of notable people who published fanzines, along with W.H. Pugmire. So, to assert that fanzines, and fandom are unimportant or non-notable contradicts the inclusion of a long list of notable people who were involved with fanzine and fandom from thoughout the 1900s, into the 2000s. From his first appearances in Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters of Filmland, to his stint at the Jones' Fantastic Museum, to his punk and horror fanzines, to his present day highly regarded short stories and novels, and appearance in the film The AckerMonster Chronicles! (about Forrest J Ackerman), W.H. Pugmire has ALWAYS been notable in several fields of activity. I do not know Mr. Pugmire, and I do not live in the U.S.A., but I have been following his career for many years now, and I would not have been able to do so unless others found him notable as well, and reported on his activities and many accomplishments. Intheshadows (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (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.
  1. ^ http://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire
More