Deletion of Eugene P. Watson

Comment: Well again, I don't think that anyone is claiming that references that aren't on the 'Net must not exist.  Of course there are other references and of course researching them takes time.  I'm not denying that, and I don't ''think'' anyone else is, either.  But the "burden of proof" in providing references lies with the article creator and/or those who wish to keep the content.  I freely acknowledge that there may indeed be such non-Internet references about Mr. Watson.  So if they are produced, I will not be stubborn, and I will change my vote accordingly and be happy to do so. In the absence of such explicit references, though,  is the guideline we use as to whether the subject can be expected to ultimately prove notable.  And in my opinion, Mr. Watson does not meet those guidelines.  Might a {{Notability}} tag been placed on the article prior to an AfD nomination?  Indeed, that might be a good way to go first.  I usually do so before I nominate for deletion.  However, I'll confess that in the case of ''this'' author, I am not always quite so diligent, since from my past attempts with him, I feel pretty confident that his response to such a tag is not going to be actually go out and research and provide better references, but rather to either ignore the tag altogether or to reply to it by insisting that the article's references are fine as they are.  With that background in mind, I have at times just gone straight to AfD with this author's article rather than bother with the non-notable tag first.  I probably should be more procedural about it regardless of my knowledge of the author's patterns, but since I have to admit that I haven't always been so, I can't really throw stones at this nominator over the issue either. As for the rest of the above, I hope I haven't given the impression I would ''ever'' defend such a practice as deleting the assertion of notability and then nominating AfD.  I agree with you that that's pretty awful.  I just don't see that that occurring on that article is germane to my vote on this article.  And with regard to how this nomination could have been better, as I note above, I agree with you and do not defend the wording of the original nomination here (beyond stating that I think it likely it was an honest mistake and don't see any reason to put it in the same category as something as nefarious as deleting the assertion of notability from an article and then nominating based on it failing to assert). I freely acknowledge that the path taken to get to this point was imperfect; but now that we are here, I still don't see that this article, with the references currently provided, meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: What has this person done to merit an entry?  Per , "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance."  Where is that in this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Oh, I guess I'd agree with your basic point about the phrasing "doesn't seem to" in the nomination.  I'm not sure I think it's quite as big a deal as you do, since I don't have much trouble |assuming good faith and thus believing the nominator when he says that what he ''meant'' by that was that "I've read  and in my opinion, this guy doesn't meet it" or something like that. Obviously, I cannot read his mind to make certain, but it seems reasonable to me that his overly concise wording in the nomination could have been an honest mistake.  But that said, yes, I'll agree with your underlying point that the nomination should have been done with better and more precise deletion criteria language than "doesn't seem to merit an entry".  Even granting that the nomination itself was imperfect, though, to me the larger issue is that, as I say, the article as it stands fails to provide references that establish Mr. Watson's notability per . So unless
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: I don't think anyone has suggested that it being poorly written is reason for deletion.  If it is deleted, the reason would be that the references provided in the article fail to establish the subject's notability per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)