Ryan A. Conklin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Improperly closed by a non-admin: the discussion had not run for a full seven days, and consensus was not clearly a keep (with four keeps, one delete, and three redirects). The closing editor seems to have jumped on a few AfDs today possibly due to an active RfA. While re-opening the AfD may or may not be worth it for one more day (my preference would be to reopen and relist for an actual consensus), it should at the very least be changed to "no consensus" in order to avoid prejudicing any potential future revisits. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I'd exercise my prerogative as an admin to revert this close unilaterally but my involvement in the closer's current RfA means that would not be a good idea. It is a 15-hour-early supervote close of an evenly-balanced discussion. The GNG was contested by the participants: the job of the closer is to weigh the arguments not to say "it meets the GNG". The redirect !voters raised other reasons to delete, such as WP:ONEEVENT, which were apparently completely overlooked by the closer. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Well, I'm surprised at Mkativerata's response, which appears to confuse "redirect" with "delete". In fact, what we have there is, apart from the nominator, a unanimous consensus not to delete the article. But a close 15 hours early is inexcusable from a candidate who's going through RFA at the moment, so I will also recommend overturn and relist.— S Marshall T/ C 01:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • They're not confused: here they're essentially synonymous. The "redirect" voters didn't think there should be an article under the title, but that it could be a useful search facility. If it helps I could change "delete" to "remove the content". Same thing. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I see what you're saying, Mkativerata, but a "keep" outcome doesn't preclude redirection based on a subsequent talk page discussion. For DRV purposes "keep" and "redirect" are virtually synonymous, given a correct closing statement (e.g. "The consensus is that this title should not be a redlink"). If that had been the closing statement and it had been made 15 hours later, nobody would have batted an eyelid.— S Marshall T/ C 02:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, meh 15 hours, meh keep. Fine by me. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Being the closure I don't know how to weigh in on these, being this is my first DRV, but clearly all the sources note he passes GNG. ONEEVENT clearly doesn't apply, as pointed out in the AfD he was in 2 shows, including "a 2009 documentary that focuses on him" How much more do you need for GNG that a tv documentary focused on you?! CTJF83 chat 03:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• I have reopened the AFD as the closer seems to be subsuming their own opinion of the sources into a supervote igboring the ONEEVENT argument that wasn't countered and the reasonable redirect arguments. Someone can close this now I guess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Hagger ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I originally closed this AFD as delete based on the analysis of the sources but was subsequently contacted on my talk page and offered a decent set of additional sourcing that I felt was compelling enough to void the AFD and undelete the article. Some of the delete proponenets remain unhappy with the sources. I am therefore raising a DRV to review my actions. Further discussion can be found here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Spartaz, I support and endorse your voiding of the AFD. The present brief is to “review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”. The offered sourcing under discussion is that of today’s date, 15 January.

• Why the offered sourcing is compelling
  
  The sourcing includes the then Poet Laureate and Chairman of the Poetry Society, and nine references cite notable writers (nos. 10, 12, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30). Sourcing includes reference to other encyclopaedias and British national broadsheet newspapers (nos. 3-6, 8). Also books, trade magazines and radio/TV.
  
  Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling
  
  Delicious Carbuncle (from now on DC) claims that “there is a fringe aspect to Hagger's writings”. The writings are outside the sourcing, but as this comment may impact on this review of the sourcing it should be pointed out that DC is here merely expressing an opinion. The facts speak for themselves. Hagger’s books include many mainstream primary themes, e.g. the Second World War, the War on Terror, a study of 25 civilisations, the founding of America, the US’s seven expansions, the attempt to create a world government, a view of the up-to-date scientific knowledge about the universe. Hagger is attempting to reflect the Age, mainstream, fringes, the lot. The sourcing is not made uncompelling because Hagger’s writings are untruly alleged to be fringe rather than mainstream.
  
  DC suggests that Nexus sometimes covers fringe topics. The main features of the Nexus issue for August-September 2006, vol. 13, no. 5, which is to hand, are: global news, obesity, Tibetan Buddhism, a massacre in Tasmania and African gold in Illinois. This is a very wide range of subjects. Because a review of a book by Hagger appears in the same issue as a topic that DC finds unacceptable does not detract from the quality of the review. Nexus is a trade magazine which is on sale in shops in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Japan, Romania, Serbia and Russia. The sourcing involving Nexus is compelling because of the breadth of its global topics, as evidenced above.
  
  More generally
  
  Although this DRV is confined to the offered sourcing and why it is/isn’t compelling, I should nevertheless point out that I have to hand an itinerary of 13 live broadcasts Hagger made to the US in May and June 2007, but did not include these in the offered sources as it would make the references too bulky. These can be sent if required. There will be more material in the 80 boxes of Hagger’s catalogued archives, but I have tried to reduce the article rather than increase it with further reference material.
  
  I am concerned at the tag/reference on DC’s profile “This user may be under the control of a ‘Chinese secret service agent’ named Xing.” Is this a joke, or does it cast doubt on DC’s reliability?
  
  With thanks, Sanrac1959 ( talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - This was a somewhat iffy AfD to start with. The main proponent for keeping the article, User:Sanrac1959, has self-identified as Nicholas Hagger's personal assistant. Note also that one of the keep votes was from User:Pink dog with cigar whose first edit was to comment on the article's talk page and second edit was to vote in the AfD. As I commented when nominating the article for deletion, there is a history of single-purpose accounts associated with Hagger's BLP and related articles on his poems ( User:GardinerNeDay, User:Livindabedaloca, & User:George199329). While this in itself isn't cause for deleting an article, it suggests an agenda and that we should look closely at sources offered.
• It bears noting that Hagger's writing contains some fringe theory aspects which make it appealing to some. ^who? One newly added source identified as a "trade magazine" by Sanrac1959 contains a review of one of Hagger's poems. Included in the same issue is an article on ""An information-processing technique developed by US clinical psychologist Dr Allan Botkin allows people to overcome grief while communicating with a deceased loved one". Entries in Who's Who and related guides are generally paid for and as such not evidence of notability. An article about the subject's home does not make the subject notable. A personal letter praising the subject's poem does not make the author notable. Nothing has been added that should change the original close of the AfD. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Procedurally, I don't think there's anything for DRV to do here. Spartaz comes out of it looking very good indeed. The discussion led to a consensus to delete, and Spartaz correctly deleted it. Then a huge weight of fresh sources arrived on his talk page, and Spartaz correctly assessed this as sufficient sourcing to invalidate the AfD completely. Spartaz' willingness to change his mind in the face of the evidence here means he has gone up even further in my esteem!

  The accusations of WP:COI against Sanrac1959 need to be understood for what they are: true, but also ad hominem. The fact that he has a conflict of interest does not make him wrong.

  Delicious Carbuncle's remarks deserve serious consideration, but they're about notability and sources. If we allow these remarks here, then we will be turning DRV into AfD round 2. We need to decide whether to relist at AfD to allow assessment of the new sources, or whether to WP:IAR and consider what Delicious Carbuncle says here. I prefer the former—there's no pressing need to ignore any rules here—so I suggest a relist. Ideally this would be a speedy relist, because there's no sense in dragging out the process any longer than necessary.— S Marshall T/ C 18:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Relist Most of the references are thoroughly unreliable. Private comments by even noted authors are not RSs for notability--the praise they give in a letter or on a book jacket is essentially indiscriminate, and is a matter of politeness rather than judgment--only what they sign in published reviews is reliable. Some of the sources speak towards the notability of the building, not the person, & some perhaps to the school. . But as an author he might be notable--one of his books at least is in several hundred libraries (The secret founding of America : the real story of freemasons, puritans and the battle for the new world.) But afd is the place to discuss this all. Actually, there is an alternative: delete the existing article as G11 speedy , entirely promotional, and start over. If kept, it will need some very drastic editing. The best way to get an article established on some subject of borderline notability, is to be reasonably modest about it--an article likethe present version gives an exceedingly bad impression , to the extent that it is hard to judge. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus - The AfD was closed 12:50, 12 January 2011 and the new sources proferred 11:44, 13 January 2011 -- within 24 hours of the close. Normally, DRV is the place to address "significant new information has come to light since a deletion," but if the closer changes their mind immediately after the close (or even during a DRV discussion), there's no trouble in the AfD closer taking unilateral action. In fact, it save on creating more or extending process. Comment - Closers don't have the power to void a properly held discussion merely because they change their close position. Closing a properly held discussion disenfranchises the AfD participants. Also, the closer didn't strick out "delete" from the close and merely "voiding this AFD close" but failed to remove the top and bottom close templates to allow another admin to cloase and failed to indicate keep or no consensus. That leave the results of that discussion in confusion. Please correct. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as is, no relisting - the article can be worked on where it is, there are enough sources to make an article, even if it is shorter than current. No indication that deletion is the way to go. DC has, by admission, pursued this "issue" all the way from Commons, crying 'COI!" all the way - but as been pointed out, there is a place to report potential conflicts of interest, and discussing the content provider is no substitute for discussing the content. Weakopedia ( talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The content is extremely poor, or I would not have bothered with any of this. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 01:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Close deletion review as moot. I think it is best to consider the present article a recreation. Since it's improved from the one subject to the AfD, it's not eligible for speedy deletion under G4. However, it can be renominated for AfD. Any objections to this? -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• I would like to answer some of the points that have been made regarding the brief, “to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”.

Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling

DC’s points.

(1) DC lists three websites together and says that they suggest an agenda. This point is outside the brief, but at least two of the three users were actually associated with vandalism, as WP know, and their vandalism led to Hagger’s being unjustifiably tagged as a vandal, according to a WP administrator. Citing outside vandal activity outside the brief and wrongly suggesting an agenda does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(2) DC’s point about the Nexus sourcing I dealt with on 15 January. DC now claims that Nexus “contains a review of one of Hagger’s poems”. In fact the two Nexus reviews are on The Light of Civilization and The Syndicate, both prose works and full-length books, as he would know if he had read the article. Wrongly suggesting that the Nexus reviews are “of one of Hagger’s poems” gives a misleading impression on this page and diminishes the calibre of the source, but does not make the sourcing uncompelling

(3) DC claims that “entries in Who’s Who and related guides are generally paid for”. Hagger’s entries in the encyclopaedias listed in reference 1 are not and never have been paid for. The initial approach was from the encyclopaedias, some nearly 20 years ago, and entries are updated each year by the encyclopaedias. DC wrongly gives a misleading impression and it does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(4) DC says that “an article about the subject’s home does not make the subject notable.” The Independent article cited in reference 8 describes the working of a historic house open to the public and substantiates the four visits by Globe Theatre casts. The Tudor historic house in question was open to the public with staff and guides, and four groups of about 50 Globe actors came to be stay and rehearse there for three days at a time in four successive years. One of the reasons the Globe came was because Hagger was known at the Globe as a verse dramatist, which is actually an argument for notability. As there has been confusion about this historic house – for example, DGG, taking up DC’s misleading impression that there was not a public dimension to the running of the historic house, refers to the notability of the building and not the person – I have added ten more articles to reference 8 (one from the Daily Telegraph, two from the Sunday Telegraph and the other seven from the daily East Anglian Daily Times, most of which are two-page spreads focusing on Hagger and his books). I was holding these back but in view of misunderstandings feel these should now be added to the sources as they are about the person as much as, and in some cases more than, the building. One of them, entitled Overlord of the Manor has three columns about Hagger’s first epic poem Overlord, and one of the others covers his stories and one of his verse plays. DC wrongly says that the press interest was about a home rather than a historic hall open to the public and that it was not about Hagger, but he does not make the sourcing uncompelling, especially now that new sources have been added.

an article about the house would be possible if there were enough sources.

(5) DC states that “a personal letter praising the subject’s poem does not make the author notable”. The Barker 20-page review of six of Hagger’s books, not “a poem”, was sent to Acumen. It was not a letter but a review, a signed copy of which was supplied to the publisher for comments to be extracted. The Poet Laureate Ted Hughes chose his correspondents very carefully and initiated the correspondence, and his six-page letter about five of Hagger’s books was later published as he knew it would be one day. By suggesting that the sourcing covered by Barker and Hughes relates to “a poem” and not several books is wrong and misleading, and does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

a referee's report is not a RS, unless someone writes an article including information about it. There is no way of verifying such material, and no way of quoting it that preserves context.

(6) DC says that the content of the article is “poor”. This is outside the brief, which is focusing on sourcing, but it is an opinion and in view of the above may be misleading. DC’s first five comments are all factually wrong and have the effect of diminishing the sourcing.

They show a huge lack of understanding of Hagger’s work and give a misleading impression. This is disappointing as editors are supposed to be factually accurate, objective and fair-minded and not to give the impression that they are conducting an “edit war”.

DGG’s points. I would like to thank DGG for taking the trouble to research library use (hundreds of copies of Hagger’s The Secret Founding of America in libraries) – that is a very good point. However, he has been misled by DC’s reference to “a personal letter”.

(1) DGG says that private letters and book jacket comments may be matters of politeness. But see DC (5) above, these were not private comments, they were public comments, made knowing that they would be published with the notable authors’ names attached. Men of letters are just as particular about their letters and comments as their reviews when they know they will one day be published, and they are reluctant to put their good names to anything they do not agree with. As to these references, the six-page Hughes letter is full of questions and sets out his own point of view very honestly, and is self-evidently not governed by politeness. I have said that Barker’s 20-page review was copied to the publisher for comments. The others had been asked for public comments and knew what they were putting their names to. The public, as opposed to private, nature of these particular comments makes this sourcing compelling rather than uncompelling.

(2) DGG suggests that the article is promotional. The brief is to focus on sourcing, but the article was not intended to be promotional. It is about the books and anything else is a sub-theme. It does not promote the historical hall, which Hagger sold in 2004, and merely mentions the schools. Should I have ignored the fact that he founded a school? I’ve cut out that it’s one of the most prominent in the area in case that could be considered promotional. Hagger’s founding of a school while he was writing his study of 25 civilisations, The Fire and the Stones, surely has a place in an article about his books. His work as an educationalist is mentioned fleetingly but should surely be included, just as Matthew Arnold’s work as an Inspector of Schools should be included in an article about his books. The article is not promotional, and this point does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(3) DGG suggests that the article should be more modest. I take this to refer to Hagger’s prolific output and the comments of the notable sources. Hagger’s cross-disciplinary prolific output is one of the things that should be covered in an article. His writings are outside the brief, but what am I supposed to say? Should I have ignored his two poetic epics, thousand stories, and challenge to modern philosophy on modesty grounds? And should I have ignored the comments of the notable sources, not provided evidence for notability in the interests of modesty? In the article I have stuck with the facts and have cut out anything not factual to make a tighter piece, and any appearance of immodesty is an accidental and unintended consequence of this process. I would point out that no mention was made of the notable sources until I was pressed for evidence of notability. The same applies to the expansion of reference 8. This point does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

I would like to thank S Marshall, Uzma Gamal, Weakopedia and Bsherr for the balance in their thoughtful, judicious contributions.

Strengthening two references

Besides strengthening reference 8 with nine new broadsheet newspaper sources, I have strengthened reference 20 by adding new material which I have to hand: 25 US radio sources. I have held these back but feel it is now right they should be included in view of comments. These two references now read:

8. The Independent, ‘A House with a Dramatic History’, Wednesday 27 August 2003, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/a-house-with-a-dramatic-history-537264.html refers to the four visits by the Globe. For references to Hagger and his books also see The Daily Telegraph, 21 June 1997 (‘Alas poor Gosnolds’, references to Overlord and The Fire and the Stones, picture of Hagger sitting in garden); The Sunday Telegraph, 10 May 1998 (‘Licence to Snoop in Suffolk’, which includes interview with Hagger about his creation of a knot garden) and 14 September 2002 (‘A Very Special Relationship’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=massingberd+otley+hall&Search= , with reference by Hugh Massingberd to The Fire and the Stones and its seven-foot long chart of 25 civilisations); and the East Anglian Daily Times of 20 March 1997 (‘Overlord of the Manor’, two-page spread, interview with Hagger and three columns on his epic poem Overlord), 1 October 1997 (‘Bridging the Cultural Divide’, interview with Hagger about a revolution in thought and culture), 13 May 1998 (interview with Hagger on Shakespeare), 24 April 1999 (‘Otley’s Owner Set on a Tudor Flourish’, interview with Hagger covering volumes of his stories and one of his verse plays, The Tragedy of Prince Tudor), 22 April 2000 (‘Dates with Destiny’, interview with Hagger on Bartholomew Gosnold), 13 October 2000 (‘Re-Writing History’, interview with Hagger on the founding of America) and 3 May 2001 (‘Raising the Star-Spangled Banner for a Suffolk hero’, interview with Hagger on Gosnold, pictures of Hagger with Jamestown discoverer and archaeologist William Kelso and Virginia’s First Lady Roxanne Gilmore).

20. Jay Weidner (daily trade US radio interviewer) conducted four radio interviews with Hagger in depth on The Secret Founding of America and other works of his on 18 November 2009, in 4 parts, http://jayweidner.com/blog/2010/04/the-secret-founding-of-america-part-1/ (leads to other 3 parts). There were 25 live interviews with Hagger regarding The Secret Founding of America on US radio in 2007, by: Reid Howell of KYMO-AM/FM East, 10 mins (7 May); Jack Roberts of Cable Radio Network – CRN National National, 10 mins (8 May); Jan Mickelson of WHO-AM Des Moines, 25 mins (8 May); Greg Berg of WGTD-FM Milwaukee WI, 30 mins (8 May); Brad Davis of Talk of Connecticut Hartford Regionally Syndicated CT, 10 mins (9 May); Jeff Schectman of KVON AM San Francisco, 30 mins (9 May); Pat McMahon of KTAR-AM Phoenix AZ, 30 mins (9 May); Brian Thomas/John of WKRC-AM Cincinnati, 15 mins (10 May); Mike “Silk” Casper of WMDC Mayville WI, 10 mins (10 May); Bill Meyer of KMED-AM Medford OR, 20 mins (10 May); Eric Von Wade of KEYS-AM Corpus Christi, 30 mins (10 May); Paul Miller of WPHM-AM, Detroit MI, 10 mins (11 May); Charles Goyette of KFNX-AM Phoenix AR, 25 mins (11 May); Jean Dean of WRVC-AM, Huntington, 30 mins (11 May); Peter Solomon of WIP-AM Philadelphia PA, 30 mins (13 May); Thom Hartmann of Eastern Air America Radio, The Thom Hartmann Show, National Syndicated, 15 mins (16 May); Quinn of WHJY-WWDG-WHEP-WGIR-FM Providence, 15 mins (17 May); Tommy B of KBUL-AM Billings MT, 30 mins (21 May); Mancow of Fox Radio News Network, 20 mins (22 May); Tron Simpson of KCMN-AM Colorado, 10 mins (24 May); Mike & Amanda of WKWS-FM, Charleston WV, 10 mins (24 May); John Cook of KMBH-FM Brownsville, 30 mins (29 May); Sonja Harju & Fred Bremner of Lifeline Universal Media Statewide Oregon, 60 mins (4 June); Don Lancer of KYW-AM Philadelphia PA, 10 mins (8 June); and Sharmai & Keith Amber of Hawaii Radio, 60 mins (15 July).

More generally

This sourcing more than fulfils Spartaz’s criteria of two reliable sources and WP’s BLP of at least one. Can the following tags now be removed in view of all the changes and the discussion (including S Marshall’s second paragraph)?

• This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011.

• It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since January 2011.

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since January 2011.

Regarding the procedural debate as to the way forward, if a broad consensus has emerged that the sourcing is not uncompelling and that the debate on sourcing has run its course, and that no useful purpose is served by prolonging it any further, it would be good if a way can be found to avoid another week of going over the same ground and repeating all the same arguments in a different forum, even though they have now all been dealt with in this forum, and perhaps wasting time. With thanks, Sanrac1959 ( talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Sanrac1959, your first point has absolutely no relation to anything I wrote, so I stopped reading there. I suspect your posting is some long-winded argument about the sources, which is not what DRV is for. (I only raised the sources directly since Spartaz based their re-closure on them without first having them added to the article.) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• DC makes three points.

(1) DC says that my first point has “no relation to anything I wrote”. He wrote on 15 January that single-purpose accounts (User:GardinerNeDay, User:Livindabedaloca, & User:George199329) “suggest an agenda and that we should look closely at sources offered”. My first point about single-purpose vandals does relate to what he wrote, and he is being misleading. The underlying issue before he came on the scene was that a vandalism tag had been attached to the name Hagger and that my user name had an unjustified vandalism tag attached to it, which blocked me, as WP will confirm.

(2) DC says (on 17 January) that “argument about the sources” is “not what DRV is for”. Oh, really? This DRV is exclusively about sources. On 13 January DC had written, “The sources haven’t swayed me.” On 14 January he wrote, “The sources added are hardly compelling.” Spartaz wrote on this page on 15 January, “Some of the delete proponents remain unhappy with the sources. I’m therefore raising a DRV to review my actions.” On his User Talk page on 15 January Spartaz wrote, “What would be most compelling in the discussion is for proponents of either side to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why they think it is/isn't compelling.” To which DC replied, “Thanks. I'll work with that.“ The brief was very clearly “to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling.” On 17 January I refuted DC’s arguments very fully and expanded two sources. Now he says that the DRV is not about argument regarding the sources. This is misleading and does not carry forward the brief as to whether the sourcing is/isn’t compelling.

(3) DC says (on 17 January), “I only raised the sources directly since Spartaz based their re-closure on them without first having them added to the article.” But this is untrue, as his statements on 13 and 14 January (above) indicate.

DC’s inability to address the points in my posting of 17 January means that he has in effect conceded that the sourcing is compelling and effectively brings this DRV to a close. Please can we not waste any more time on this analysis, as one side is analysing the proffered sourcing and providing analysis of why they think it is/isn’t compelling, and the other side, although promising to “work with that”, isn’t.

With thanks Sanrac1959 ( talk) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hagger? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 12:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that threw up red flags all over the place when he posted on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Relist at AfD. New sources are enough to make this worth a second look, and not an outright delete. Sanrac and DC can take up their arguments there. DRV isn't the place for it. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Sanrac's comments strengthen my [previous views about the unsatisfactory promotional nature of the article. and the lack of firm notability in any one field. The manner of his commenting reinforces my view that he is intent on exerting ownership of the article. If it survives, it will certainly need further editing. If the choice is between having an article in the present form, or none, my !vote would be for none: this is a frequent problem here, we can deal effectively with an article that is entirely promotional, but if the author is stubborn, it is very hard to deal with an article that is mostly promotionalism, unless the prior editor is cooperative. I very much dislike the argument that we should not have an article on something because it will be hard to keep the content NPOV, but the only alternative might be an article ban for an editor. I mentioned the one book as being found in a moderately high number of libraries--because it is the only work by him that is. For the worthlessness of book jacket comments, browse amazon a little: the comments are there because they are intended to be promotional. What makes sources reliable is not their public nature, but their resonsible editorial control. Book jacket copy is the responsibility of publicity departments, not the literary editors. As for the letters, when someone publishes in a reliable source an article about him using them, then they'll be acceptable sources. Re-reading the article, the emphasis on the numbers of works, the numbers of characters in a play, and so on, indicate promotionalism. The emphasis on material describing his non-notable contributions to philosophy and myriad other fields , & the house he lives in, are the hallmark of an article about a dilettante. Earnestly defending such content is the mark of COI. I do notice one minor point: tutor to Prince Hitachi might make a little for notability, if there is 3rd party evidence for its substantial nature. I suppose I shall have to explain it again at a second AfD. I continue to advise the author that the only way he can show he does not have such a large COI as to make his objective editing of the article impossible, and for us to view his comments with a certain amount of skepticism. would be to rewrite it in 1/4 the length before the AfD starts. I'v e given similar advice many times before: most people follow it, & the article is often kept. Some do not, and the inevitable happens. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I see what DGG means now and thank him for taking the trouble to explain so fully. I have taken his advice. I do want to be reasonable, flexible and constructive. I have reduced the article and have toned everything down as much as possible, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have taken his point about numbers. I have no intention to be promotional. The article says that Hagger has not been at the historical hall since 2004, it’s nothing to do with him now. The newspaper articles about it are in the references because they refer to his books. Please let me know if the new piece is an improvement. Hagger may seem to be a dilettante but he is cross-disciplinary and introducing one perspective into different disciplines. He is trying to escape being confined to one discipline, where so many academics are imprisoned. As to Prince Hitachi, I don’t know if there is third-party evidence and will research this. I know that a photo exists of the young Hagger with him in the Prince’s palace grounds, but I don’t know if it is appropriate to use this. I believe that Hagger co-planned a state visit he made to England in the mid-1960s. I thank DGG again for being so constructive and giving me the benefit of some wise advice. Sanrac1959 ( talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Article has been re-edited and reduced, references have been reformatted to conform to WP house style. Can multiple issues box now be removed? Sanrac1959 ( talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. I have read this article carefully, and I have looked at as many cited sources as are available (the great majority are either unavailable or citations to Hagger's own work; particularly unconscionable are the various quotations from other academics in the footnotes that are not cited at all--a footnote without a citation in it is not a citation). I consider it to be puffery, top to bottom. Hagger is an amateur writer and scholar who has continually insisted, along with a tiny number of admirers, that his work is not only legitimate but incredibly important. But there is clearly no consensus for that view; in each of the many fields he has written about, he is a fringe figure. I find this DRV disturbing--an attempt to hijack the process by overwhelming it through sheer persistence. I do not think we should send this back to AfD and continue the charade; I think we should delete it. It would be inappropriate for this encyclopedia to further these self-promotional efforts. Chick Bowen 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Some cited newspaper sources from the 20th century have not been put on the internet. Copies of the articles can be supplied. Many sources can be found. The academics were invited to make public comments by publishers’ editorial (not publicity) staff, and the comments were used on book jackets with their full knowledge, co-operation and consent. Copies can be supplied. They need not have lent their names to these comments but chose to do so. Chick Bowen is entitled to his opinion, but as it borders on WP:PERSONAL (No personal attacks) I decline to make any further response in accordance with its guidelines, except to point out that Hagger has written more than 30 books and can hardly be described as an amateur. Sanrac1959 ( talk) 13:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete per Delicious carbuncle. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist as the issue of the new sources should be addressed at AfD, not DrV. Many of the sources actually are quite reliable, but the mentions small and some are significant but not clearly reliable. So there is a need for a discussion given the new sources. Hobit ( talk) 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• In the interests of being reasonable and flexible, the poetry and drama books are now presented in a more compact form and the public comments made by notable people have been reduced and compacted. There are at least two decent sources in fulfilment of Spartaz’s criteria and the article and sources have been toned down in relation to what they were. Hagger’s subjects are mainstream, not fringe (see 15 January, para 2, Second World War, War on Terror etc. above) and his two most recent books are on globalism, a theme surely of interest to WP readers. A balancing process has been at work. Have we now achieved the right balance of neutrality and decent sources? Sanrac1959 ( talk) 12:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You continue to misunderstand the purpose of the discussion here, but speaking of Hagger's books, I have a question. I assume that his books published by "Oak-Tree Publishing" are self-published. "O Books" appears to be a step above vanity publishing, but I am unable to find information on "Element Books" since there are several companies using variations of that name. Can you provide some information on this publisher? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Oak-Tree Books was defunct by 1986. The only Hagger book it did was the one on Scargill, which was too controversial to be done speedily by other publishers. Element Books published Hagger from 1991 but ceased trading in 1999, I believe, with the loss of many jobs, and some of it passed within HarperCollins. Sterling, the US publisher, republished some of Hagger’s earlier titles in the early 2000s. O Books (nothing to do with Oak-Tree) published Hagger from 2004, aiming mainly at the US. Watkins/Sterling published Hagger’s The Secret Founding of America in 2007 and requested a sequel, The Secret American Dream, which they are publishing this coming April. It sells books through the Barnes & Noble chain, which, I believe, also take Hagger’s O Books (nothing to do with Oak-Tree) titles. Sanrac1959 ( talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Spartaz’s brief (Jan 15) was to “review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”. The sources have been strengthened and criticisms have been listened to and addressed, and the sources, article and book list have been compacted. Some users have raised points outside the brief and these have also been addressed, for example the misunderstanding regarding Hagger’s publishers. There is no evidence that the sources are uncompelling. Of the 51 offered sources at least two comply with Spartaz’s criteria, and these are strengthened by the other 49. Sanrac1959 ( talk) 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Air Cycle Corporation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn Courcelles' decision to delete. I would like to further substantiate the article with newly researched sources and the sources I mentioned in the AfD discussion, replace any insignificant sources, and further explore notability if need be. I do not think my arguments in favor of the subject's notability were adequately answered. Specifically, Alan Liefting's statement that ' "non-famous and/or small organizations" are by definition non-notable' directly contradicts WP:CORP in that ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" ' and "smaller organizations can be notable [...] arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." For these reasons, I request that the deletion be overturned. Thanks very much. -- Synthality ( talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• What if the article were userfied to you to work on? You could make improvements and, when ready, move it back to the mainspace. (Know that, to meet inclusion criteria, the article must cite reliable independent media sources, and notability of the business must be independent from its products.) Would you withdraw the deletion review in favor of that solution? -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Userify, and add the sources, and relist if desired. I continue to have my doubts, but let's see how it looks. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Please fix User:Synthality/Air Cycle Corporation per your nomination. Get rid of the website blogs and press release material and add material from Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Feel free to use local, state, and federal government writings about Air Cycle Corporation in the article. It is a waste management company based in Chicago, so you may find material in civil and criminal databases. Once fixed, post a note in this thread or a new DRV thread for others to look at the improvements. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thanks all for the feedback. Sounds like userfication is the best route. Will do on getting rid of any insignificant sources and bolstering the citations. Is it possible to restore the deleted article to my userspace? The version I currently have was an earlier draft than the one that was deleted. Thank you. Synthality ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• No problem, to keep the two histories seperate, I've stuck the deleted version at User:Synthality/Air Cycle Corporation 2. Courcelles 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

MotionX ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I posted a new version of the MotionX page for consideration at User:Arthbkins/sandbox. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RHaworth who deleted the page. Please let me know if more information would be useful. Arthbkins ( talk) 01:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• If you are not seeking to restore a deleted article, deletion review is the wrong process. If the article in your sandbox is a substantial improvement form the deleted article, it cannot be speedily deleted as a recreation. I'll list it for moving to the mainspace. -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply