Deletion of Robert M. Price

Comment: and send to  to address any concerns over POV or format.... and you know... it really doesn't matter whether or not he meets the nom's concerns for , as he is making a tremendous at stab at ... and because of his cult following a strong case for  as well http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DVXA&q=%22Robert%20M.%20Price%22%2C%20Lovecraft&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wphttp://hplfilmfestival.com/2008/portland/guests/robert-m-pricehttp://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/p/robert-m-price/new-lovecraft-circle.htmhttp://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780307416797.htmlhttp://www.bookfinder.com/author/robert-m-price/http://www.hippocampuspress.com/other/tales_out_of_dunwich.htmlhttp://www.tower.com/new-lovecraft-circle-robert-m-price-paperback/wapi/102147453.  Notability can found in the strangest places. Since both the article AND wiki can benefit from its improvement, deletion is not a consideration
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Cleanup (WP:CLEANUP||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: I may be wrong here, but I think he meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) – as indicated by DGG and Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. – the discipline being a subfield of literary analysis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as per Schmidt. Yes, he would probably fail  (though that's a horrible criteria to try to enforce IMHO), but he passes other criteria instead. This whole nomination smacks of academic snobbery to me, though that's not why I'm suggesting keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Price ''is'' well-known in the field of Lovecraft studies, but I agree that this article is unsuitable as it stands. I'd recommend that users interested in the topic eliminate the |unsourced and |peacocky material before this AfD closes. (And, Ottava, it might be a good idea to inform the editors who have made major contributions to the article of the AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: exremely notable author on the subject of Lovecraft, editor and contributor to multiple works. Deletion rational is pure 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I have have never censored ''|notable'' Atheism|atheists and |fringe theories, unless of course they are not notable or consist of OR|novel ideas.  I am not sure this |stub falls into the useless cruft category
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FRINGE||WP:NOR||WP:STUB)

Comment: DGG's arguments are compelling. I'm not sure that I follow the nom's reason. So what if subject probably doesn't meet ? He probably also fails  utterly and completely. That doesn't mean he cannot be notable otherwise. Whatever the academic status of Lovecraft studies, this person may be notable as a fan of Lovecraft. If the article is bad, it should be cleaned up and/or rewritten, not put to AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ATHLETE)