Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. N. Herbert


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Considering that most of those arguing to delete the article here are likely to be the same person, the consensus to keep here is clear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

W. N. Herbert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Jjlayton (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) As previous editors have noted, given their requests for deletion, this poet seems patently non-notable, and being Dundee's 'Makar' (a role which demands the title-holder send tweets) does not help signify anything on this already slender page. I have searched extensively online and there are very few articles out there to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.
 * — Jjlayton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., the Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

— Jjlayton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs some work but WP:BEFORE does not appear to have been followed here. I'm surprised at the suggestion by the nominator that not much shows up on a search. Even a basic search shows a rich spread of coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a Fellow of the Royal Society I think he passes without further ado.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Drchriswilliams and E.M.Gregory. Article gives plenty of indications of notability. (Aside: I'm curious that a new user appears on Wikipedia and the very first thing they do is to nominate this article for deletion....) --Deskford (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I can see from the last AfD that significant searches were made to prove notability, but as far as I see there still isn't an article / more than one article that asserts significant proof in a reliable secondary source. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Insufficient references based on reliable, third-party published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.35.146 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * — 217.34.35.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— ClaireJones19883 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete Given that previous edits show a variety of people raising this issue in the past and that it fails WP:N and WP:V, strong delete, let's not be hassled by the issue further as it'll clearly only be raised by other users in future. ClaireJones19883  —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is the "last AFD"? I see none on the talk page, none linked here.  Who are the editors demanding deletion and where does Nom see their demands?  I am completely puzzled.  He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a well-known poet,, and even a very simple news google on his name in  produces prima facie support for notability, here:, that same google search also showed that he has gotten a lot of attention for his storng, public support for the highly controversial politician Jeremy Corbyn.  Can it be that this AFD is a political battle  being waged at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As this is a notable poet, per the multiple mentions by E.M. Gregory and Drchriswilliams. I'm not one to throw around the idea of bad faith, however I find it interesting that a new user's first edit was to create an AfD on this article, especially given the news article listed above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I’m just intrigued that Fellowship status is being used to support this entry. Many types of fellowship exist, and as such they don’t signify notability, otherwise many academics would require Wikipedia pages and this would be a cluttered place indeed. The existing stub is evidently weak and do the mentions kindly posted by the E.M.Gregory prove significant coverage, rather than mere mentions? I will investigate, but journalism supporting Jeremy Corbyn is not evidence for notability either, or every Guardian reporter would warrant a page. As the revision by ‘Randykitty’ on 2nd January proves, this article has been PRODded before, and the editor was advised to ‘take to AfD is necessary’. I think new arrivals on Wiki are encouraged to edit, so Jlayton’s nomination for deletion is only carrying on previous concerns by other users, so I wouldn’t presume bad faith. Saying someone is a ‘well known’ poet when evidence of this is up for dispute could smack of nepotism but I too want to preserve good faith as long as possible. 81.149.126.164 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) AdamKlay
 * — 81.149.126.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. aka AdamKlay.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

— 109.144.194.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete There are some references to Herbert in the PN Review that might help support the article, but can't find significant enough links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.194.128 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, editors talking about "previous afd" may be meaning | this prod, anyway Keep, subject meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, which is now reflected in the article, thanks to . A Gsearch brings up lots of useable references ie. he judges notable poetry prizes - "The UK's most valuable annual poetry prizes are in their 13th year and going strong." -, his books appear as recommended reading for university studies, here is a gsearch page that show a number of study programs - , here is another book review - "WN Herbert's informative and witty preface rightly urges readers simply to hurl themselves into the poems,.." . Could a helpful Admin please "snowy keep" this one, as this appears to be another waste of time, although article has been improved Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment (based on recent delete comments), no, the previous proder and this nom did not edit the article or discuss notability concerns on the talkpage, nor have they appeared to carry out checks according to "2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" - from B. Carry out these checks of WP:BEFORE. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Still advising keep as above, but I have just revited this and it is worse than I had assumed. Every delete ivote is by a  new, or close-to new editor, with the possible exception of  User:ClaireJones19883, who has made a small number of edits (I did not look at the edits, but her User talk:Clairejones19883 and the article Claire Jones was trying to have accepted, Ruth Dugdall, was in fact added to Wikipedia by a different very low-volume editor, then edited by ClaireJones.)  Back to this page, it is clear that either someone is using many accounts in an attempt to delete this page, or that this poet has enemies 4 or 5 of whom have come to Wikipedia for the purpose of voting delete on this page. It is also clear that every experienced editor who has offered an opinion has opined keep this WP:SNOWBALL.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2016 (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.