Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma tatham

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emma tatham

Emma tatham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No proof of 'notability'. AlexSloan 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep Since the referenced book exists I'm going to go with notability met. Needs some serious cleanup since it appears to have been written by a high school student who liked her work but couldn't find her on Wikipedia. -Hansonc 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I dunno...something tells me that if she wasn't notable, there wouldn't be a company printing her book 148 years after it was written... Smashville 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She seems notable, and well sourced judging from the fact that the subject died near a century ago. Chris! _ct 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She was notable at the time. She seems to have been the subject of at least two biographies shortly after her death (both to be found on Google Books). Matthew Arnold refers to her, unfavourably, in one of his essays and her work crossed the Atlantic, where the Methodist Review in 1855, in a backhanded compliment, said: "WE must give the praise of good intention, at least, to "The Dream of Pythagoras, and Other Poems, by EMMA TATHAM ... The rhymed portions of the volume are better than the blank verse". There are references out there, if anyone wants to expand the article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly not a hoax. This is a rare exception to Geogre's Law.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly a hoax how? I didn't know Amazon.com was in the business of selling non-existent books... Smashville 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So that would mean that Matthew Arnold, who wrote about her less than a decade after her death and whose works, including that particular essay, have been the subject of much academic scrutiny was pulling a fast one? Look, there are many references to her out there if you look. 10 seconds searching got me a mention in the the Dublin University Magazine from 1855 here. Very definitely not a hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If you check the history, you'll find that my comment was vandalised by an anon-IP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, indeed. Personal note on way. Honestly didn't think to check that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Striking my misplaced original reply to HisSpaceResearch, as I was replying to a vandalized version of his comment. (But leaving the link intact). I'm suitably embarrassed. Sorry about that, HSR. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I've un-vandalised my comment now, and no problem at all. Best not to feed the trolls and vandals too much - WP:DENY.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I also redacted mine. I guess Assuming Good Faith does have its consequences...I never really thought someone would vandalize someone's comments... Smashville 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep definitely notable. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article asserts notabilty and has sources to back up notabilty claims in article. AngelOfSadness talk 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.