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.
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I instantly found was
this,
this,
this and
this and this would need meaningful and convincing improvement if kept. Pinging
Bearcat.
SwisterTwistertalk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: as non-notable. Unsourced claims, meagre Google hit results.
Quis separabit? 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This article definitely needs major referencing improvement over where it stands right now, but some good references are available if you dig more deeply into the search results that SwisterTwister gave above. There's a full-page entry in Emmanuel S. Nelson's Encyclopedia of Contemporary LGBTQ Literature of the United States, for example — and it's long been a principle of Wikipedia that one good entry in an external encyclopedia can effectively count for as much toward GNG as ten lesser sources combined. But that isn't even all there is: there's also a full-page article in The Advocate about the publication of his novel Letters to Montgomery Clift. Plus he's been the winner of several notable literary awards (
Stonewall Book Award, Violet Quill,
Jim Duggins Award) — which helps the sourceability, because the names of those awards can be added to the search string to help distill the signal-to-noise ratio further. So the references, and the credible and
WP:AUTHOR-passing claims of notability are there, and the article just needs to be revised to reflect that better. Keep; I'll personally look after sprucing it up.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Update: I've substantially updated the sourcing, so that now instead of just one source it's sitting on eleven. There are one or two other details I still need to find a source for, but eleven distinct sources is absolutely more than sufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - looks to be enough to pass
WP:BIO, considering the points raised by
Bearcat and my own search. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:30, 2 November 2015 (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.