Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Emanuel


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

James Emanuel
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This author has no verifiable sources outside of Schneider's page. Schneider promotes only himself, and is fond of hoaxes. This writer may be Schneider's pseudonym. A hoax. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'''NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.'''--SouthernNights (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Emanuel is a poet of international recognition. Just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable. The article has plenty of reliable sources to support this notability. I mean, this subjects papers are in the f'in Library of Congress. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentI have fixed the title of the AFD discussion, as the template was not completed correctly.  Horologium  (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea who this "Schneider" is, but Emanuel is a real poet of real importance. Here's one source to start with. You'll find more under James A. Emanuel. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I once heard a radio interview between Schneider and Emanuel, and the two voices were clearly different. He’s been interviewed by NPR, I believe, and in France, he has a strong following, so I vote keep. Shukichisanzawa (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Well known writer--many independent sources, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthStory
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alabamaboy08
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dayewalker
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StevenEdmondson
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steven_J._Anderson
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tmwns

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete The rant above is enough to convince me that there is no substance here. There is precious little in the way of independent sourcing, and we have admission of block-evading sockpuppetry.  Horologium  (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking !vote; I missed Zagalejo's link when I posted, and that, along with the rationales from DGG, Jasynnash2 and Eddie.willers is enough. The sockpuppetry and screedy sniveling don't help matters, though.  Horologium  (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you miss my comment, or is what I have provided not good enough? Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The anthology he edited is published by the well known mainstream publisher Free Press, & is in over 1500 US & Canadian libraries, according to worldCat . His book on Langston Hughes is in the standard Twayne's United States authors series, indicating him to be recognized as an authority in the subject. (and is in even more libraries). an essay of his on Hughes has been reprinted in "Langston Hughes: Black genius; a critical evaluation," one of a series of standard anthologies for students  published by the College Language Association, fully indicating academic acceptance as a critic. His major poetry is in more than 200 libraries, not bad for a contemporary poet. And his work is in the standard poetry anthologies The best American poetry, 2005 by Paul Muldoon and The Pushcart prize 2001 XXV : best of the small presses and also XX for 1996. Enough for notability as a poet. That his work may have been also praised by an eccentric critic is no reason for exclusion. Amazing what a search in a library catalog can determine, as compared to unsupported rhetoric. DGG (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the tit for tat. He has enough mention| here to allow improvements to the article and its references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Sock puppetry and other assorted misdeeds aside, James Emanuel is of sufficient note to merit 10 entries at the [Library Of Congress]. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that's not a sufficient reason by itself. Writing any number of insignificant books does not make a person notable. The point here is that some of the works are significant. DGG (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree. Inclusion in national libraries, such as LoC or the British Library, IMHO, is evidence of notability no matter how 'insignificant' the tome. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.