Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason D. Wilkins


 * 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. This is about the notability of the person, not about the notability of rictameter.  Sandstein  14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jason D. Wilkins

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable poet. Self-promotional. Only references are self-published.  Graymornings (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A web search on "rictameter" shows that the form is pretty popular these days, and there are at least a few references indicating that Wilkins' claim may be valid.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Undecided. I can only find one source I would consider reliable and independent, and that refers back to Wikipedia.  (Yes, I know the book's self published, but (a) this is common practice in the field of poetry and (b) the author is clearly an expert on the subject so passes WP:V).  I'd say that while rictameter is notable (notable enough for a retired professor of English to write an autobiography in the form, at least), its inventors unfortunately don't seem to be.  My only concern is WP:CREATIVE point 2.  On the face of it, Wilkins meets this requirement.  The concept seems to be (becoming) important in its field.  But there are apparently no reliable sources that discuss Wilkins' role in creating it, other than those written by Wilkins himself.  And those that derive directly from the wikipedia article.  JulesH (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that any of his work was ever actually published by anyone other than himself, or has ever been noticed by anyone in a published source. I strongly doubt that rictameter is notable either: oe selfd-published book written in the format is nt notability, but that will be for a later afd. DGG (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are SCADS of hits on term rictameter. Clearly this form has caught on, if only among amateur poets.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rictameter has its own article and seems notable, but the poet himself hasn't been mentioned in enough third-party sources to have his own article, at least for now. Redirecting to rictameter is a possibility. However, rictameter does look like it has a bit of a web following, and if it keeps growing as a phenomenon, Wilkins might be notable enough for an article in the future.  Graymornings (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep there are more than just the one self-published book that reference Rictameter. If you only checked at Amazon.com and ran a search under rictameter, you would see there are many more from authors in various locations around the world. Rompues (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Rompues
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . nn subject,possible creator of a notable poetic form, but the connection between the two seems dubious. While I can't doubt that the story about the Rictameter, it can not be proven with the sources given, and I cant find a site that provides a clear connection between Wilkins and the creation of the Rictameter, which means that while notability can possibly be proven, the article fails to do so, and in that failure finds itself without notability. If we can't verify the information on the page, then it can't be included in an encyclopedia, or else any person in the world could have a page so long as they claim they created something without having any proof that they did.Mrathel (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the link between Wilkins and Rictameter is dubious, and even if it could be verified, I don't believe that would be enough to get him to pass WP:N. I don't believe this person meets any of the WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:59, 23 December 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.