Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman
This case has almost every warning flag there is: article full of , no  (only numerous ''unpublished'' white-papers), COI (-created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Istheleftright Istheleftright &ndash; likely vanity),  ("Herrman has had three sizeable unpublished manuscripts on number theory circulating for some time now amongst a circle of friends and readers/editors.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have not yet been recognized by the mainstream, i.e. he has numerous intellectual works, but they're all in the form of unpublished essays.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 To some of the commentators above, I emphasize that, because his entire scholarship appears to be unpublished (e.g. 0 WoS hits), he is not recognized as an authority on any of these subjects ''by other people'', even though he clearly views himself as such. Even GS, which slurps in lots of unpublished material shows nothing!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
— User:Agricola44, 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:COATRACK||WP:TE (Wikipedia:No original research)