Deletion of W. H. Pugmire

Comment: Now I'm convinced. There really isn't anything substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of  and . User  Rhonan's !vote of "strong keep" rests on an objection to Wikipedia's standards of notability themselves, not an assertion that the community's standards have actually been met. We should not keep this article to prove a point. In addition, it's an unfortunate misconception among non-Wikipedians that a person is a nobody until they have a Wikipedia article, and that information is "lost" if you delete an article. The information remains right where it was before Wikipedia came along, and the subject's stature remains what it ever was, and an article that was getting under 500 hits a month has no effect on that stature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Pernoctus, there's some difference of opinion among AfD regulars about how to interpret lack of participation, and whether repeated relistings are appropriate. In this case, I've been hoping someone more familiar with Seattle and/or Lovecraft might show up to opine, but since that didn't happen, I'll take a shot.  Based on what I could find in the usual online searches, it appears that Pugmire is a colorful local character of some note around Seattle (''The Stranger (newspaper)|The Stranger'' called him a "community anti-icon"http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/visual-arts-listings/Content?oid=12418; also see e.g. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Profile?oid=2443087http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2001960115_scifi19m.htmlhttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19961218&slug=2365637), but probably not |notability since I could not track down any ''significant'' coverage in reliable sources.  His writing does have some coverage (as in the sources in the article) but I am not clear whether any of these qualify as reliable sources. So I have to conclude that notability is not established, though I'd remain open to being convinced otherwise if more substantial coverage shows up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)