Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rose

Richard Rose

not notable and self-publicising (see sales info) Lincolnite 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not quite speedy material, but definitely not notable enough for wp. — brighterorange (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the best google search that I can come up with to gauge the notability of this particular Richard Rose. --goethean ॐ 18:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Friday (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Possible self promotion. — Cory Maylett 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know several people who have been impressed by his book. In my circle, he is notable. Promotional material should be removed from article. --goethean ॐ 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The material in the external links confirms that this man lectured at universities throughout the USA. Rose's books and poems are worthy of distinction. philco2 02:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is a function of what circle you troll around in. If the reference to sales material is what is offensive then cut that part out. For those that troll around in esoteric enlightenment circles, Rose is as notable as Merrell-Wolff. --Algebraicring 22:27 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The presence of the content here is valuable to researchers; the material is profound and is non-sectarian; the author might not be widely known to the public but there is substantial under-the-radar interest in his work. Self-promotion is not an issue as the author devoted his life tirelessly for decades on a strict non-profit basis. The google search listed above also references the title of a book about the author, hence it appears promotional. Here's a wider search: [1] sharnish 23:59 20 September 2005