Deletion of Charles S. Herrman

Comment: The hyperlink to the images refers, curiously, to wikipedia, most of them are original content, but the case isn't that, the article is filled with |POV and also the subject is closely tied to its contributor, and even though the article is written by a very intelectual person, it is extensively filled with personal reflections and there is no verifiability on the sources as denoted by other user that wrote that in the article's talk page. I think this is a major hoax or some kind of small philosopher who thinks he can garner attention by starting an article in wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Mr. Herrman's work here is a substantial, positive contribution to the Wikipedia in keeping with the spirit of its mission and principles.  The primary topics addressed in the article are surely notable. Those with serious interest in the primary topics addressed in this article would feel strange disputing their notability or significance.  (I don't see that this in dispute; perhaps I've missed or misread some of the discussion).  As for Mr. Herrman's own "notability" status I think he qualifies based on this criterion: otability (people) | "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."1 Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."  (He seems notable enough among the 1100 or so scholars who have downloaded his work from SSRN, where he is among the top 10 most popular authors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:PEOPLE|The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.''" And, "''|A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject''" ... In my humble opinion, Charles S. Herrman is worthy of an article in its own right. Did you guys read the whole article? I edited it a few months ago, but I had forgotten how "big" this article is. Yes, certainly there is much work still to be done, but I think and hope that we all together will make this article a good article, and fully compliant with Wikipedia. Happy editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: This case has almost every warning flag there is: article full of , no  (only numerous ''unpublished'' white-papers), COI (-created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Istheleftright Istheleftright &ndash; likely vanity),  ("Herrman has had three sizeable unpublished manuscripts on number theory circulating for some time now amongst a circle of friends and readers/editors. As he makes it ready for a broader audience (before 2011) we will report of it here"),  (most of the art is on his metaphysics), AfD socking, legal threats, prolix |wikilawyering, and on and on! But if we cut through all of that, the main problem is a glaring lack of notability. This reminds me a little of 2 other recent cases (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentin Smarandache (2nd nomination)|here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Copley|here) in that the article paints the subject as an intellectual whose great achievements have not yet been recognized by the mainstream, i.e. he has numerous intellectual works, but they're all in the form of unpublished essays. I agree that the problem isn't so much that he doesn't have academic credentials or a formal position. The problem is that there are no legitimate works that demonstrate notability: no publications, so not citations; no independent articles ''about'' him, etc. To some of the commentators above, I emphasize that, because his entire scholarship appears to be unpublished (e.g. 0 WoS hits), he is not recognized as an authority on any of these subjects ''by other people'', even though he clearly views himself as such. Even GS, which slurps in lots of unpublished material shows nothing! I can only gather that any citations discussed above are self-citations that even GS seems to be unaware of. This is the crux of the notability problem. His only claim seems to be on a short letter of introduction written by Charles Hartshorne when the latter was apparently 100 years old (available http://www.csherrman.com/ here), but this ephemeral piece is ''far'' from sufficient. I'm sorry to say that this is an absolutely uncontroversial "delete". Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:COATRACK||WP:TE)

Comment: Delete added after original comment).  fails , , , , among others
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOTWEBSPACE||WP:SELFPUB||WP:N)