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 per the snowball clause. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 05:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Wayne Ray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Being a secretary/treasurer and an organizer is not the same as having produced an important body of regularly-cited work. Also fails WP:GNG - most of the sources currently in the article fail WP:RS and/or do not cover the subject in significant detail. The only reliable sources I could find that cover the subject are along these lines [1], which makes this a textbook BLP1E. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - So there's no mystery about it, I'm assuming that this deletion is in response to this Wikipediocracy post. (I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge of who is/is not important in poetry to express an opinion either way on this AFD, but just thought I should mention this.) Blythwood ( talk) 12:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Just so everyone is clear: while the Wikipediocracy blog post brought the existence of this article to my attention, the decision to submit it to AfD, and the rationale I've provided above (which is based in policy), are entirely my own. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 12:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As a poet, this person is simply not notable. The books seem, for the most part, to have been self-published or published by very small presses. No secondary sources provide any evidence of notability. As for the GNG and any articles that pop up from newspapers, they are BLP1E material. Drmies ( talk) 19:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - My awareness of this subject was raised by the Wikipediocracy article. I wasn't sure at a glance whether this met GNG or not but assumed that somebody would bring this to AfD. So let's take it from the top with an open mind... I would consider one source showing in the piece to count towards GNG — the James Horner interview. It also bears note that Ray is the founder of HMS press (per that interview), so all publications with the publisher spam barcode number 'ISBN number starting "0-9919957" (at least) are self-publications. That's 10 out of 18... Searching for more sources towards GNG now.... Carrite ( talk) 10:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply

A second source towards GNG would be "London Poet Sentenced 23 Months for Child Porn." There is no mention of this newsworthy event in the sanitized biography as it sits, I note. Carrite ( talk) 10:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I note that there are only 42 Google hits showing for "Wayne Scott Ray," most of which deal with either the child pornography charges or are Wikipedia/Commons pages and mirrors. Toss out the false matches and publisher promotional fluff mentions and it's pretty clear that this is a GNG failure outside of the dubious BLP-1E honor associated with the subject's legal difficulties. Even expanding the search results by including duplicates and mirrors runs the total G-hits up to a paltry 70. A very small footprint and nothing whatsoever counting to GNG outside of some apparently self-written fluff for the Ontario Poetry Society. Carrite ( talk) 10:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per my investigation of notability above. Carrite ( talk) 10:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing that addresses WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete though potentially "canvassed" since I know about this article from WPO Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Carrite's reasoning - Alison ^❤ 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per Carrite and Drmies. INeverCry 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Carriet, et. al. Purely promotional, not notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG (and yes, I am aware of the hoo-ha over this on another website). BTW, would anyone care to comment here, which also involves Wayne Ray.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've commented there. The file's copyright seems dubious. I've opened a deletion request on Commons that may affect numerous WayneRay uploads: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScoutsYorkminster.jpg. INeverCry 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Peter Damian ( talk) 15:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Blythwood ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As written, this is based entirely on primary sources and a blog, with no indication shown of reliable source coverage — so I ran a ProQuest search, and found nothing by which the sourcing could be improved at all. The hits that did exist pertained entirely to a former mayor of North Battleford, Saskatchewan and/or an American medical professor, with literally just one hit for this Wayne Ray and even then not in a context that could confer notability — it simply mentions his name in conjunction with a military history website. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of RS coverage which verifies an WP:NAUTHOR pass, but nothing like that is claimed or sourced here. Bearcat ( talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Self-published sources are okay to a limited extent by a person in the article about that person even though ideally we should rely predominantly on secondary sources independent of the article subject. But for determining notability per notability standards on Wikipedia, once we exclude the primary sources, there is not enough significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article subject, so the article should be deleted. — Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The only real source of notability is a BLP1E violation. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not totally convinced that he can't be argued up to borderline notability, but -- all things considered, it would be better, and a kindness to the subject, to delete the article... Herostratus ( talk) 06:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete, based on my own reading of the article and checking on, and for sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. I have no idea what the kerfuffle is at Wikipediocracy, I've never been there and I'm not likely to go there to find out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Insufficient independent reliable sources to establish sufficient notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:20, 27 March 2016 (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.