This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Poetry. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.
Anyone can help maintain the list on this page:
- To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Poetry}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Poetry.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
[edit] Poetry
- Andrew Slattery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Andrew Slattery" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This article was previously deleted after a sock-infested AfD back in October of last year, for lacking verifiable notability by the standards of similar subjects. Whilst this article qualifies under CSD-G4 as a repost (it's the same article, only with slightly less information), a 14-month gap is enough to warrant community input again to see if consensus has changed. A polite note in advance: new editors, we value your opinions but this is not a majority vote, it is a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt per CSD-G4. Obviously not notable. Self-published sources do not establish notability. Only sources I can find are self-published or social networking sites.SnottyWong talk 12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedly delete per G4 Notability has not changed in the intervening months. Angryapathy (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G4 - Not notable. Lithorien (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, also clearly doesn't qualify for G4 due to post-initial-AFD events. The prior AFD was a debacle, unfortunately. There is more evidence of notability than there was previously (how much more notable I can't say); for example, the subject's work has been anthologized in a national best-of-the-year volume [1]. The subject has recently, it seems, been named an artist-in-residence by an apparently notable Australian cultural organization [2]. The awards won by the subject are certainly no less notable than the awards which by (unhappy) consensus demonstrate notability in other fields, like those for pornographic performers; and he's received several potentially notable awards since the prior AFD took place. I'd say the available sourcing qualifies him as just notable enough. Certainly shouldn't be salted if deleted; he's at the very least advancing toward notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This article has no important information, it is little more than a bunch of lists which is clearly what WP:NOT is written for, and it seems terrible. Delete and Salt for say 12 months. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Francis W. Tancred (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Francis W. Tancred" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Delete. Unsourced biography dating back to May 2007. I do see some hits on Google Books, but the content is hidden and does not reveal to me if this person is notable or not. I am unable to find good biographical material for this subject. From what I can tell this name is a pseudonym. Is this person still alive even? It has a BLP sources tag but I can't tell. The article states that the subject's influence on the poetry genre was "relatively minor". If someone can locate solid references for this article please leave me a note on my talk page for reconsideration. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as there are exhaustive books discussing the cantos, and they will discuss every person in it. Readers might well want information about the references in this rather difficult poem, and here is the first place most people look,. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If indeed the name is just a pseudonym, then a merge/redirect would be best. See Talk:Francis W. Tancred#Pseudonym. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to Imagism or Poets' Club. There isn't really enough information on him online, and I wonder how much is there offline. The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature which has hundreds of poets in it, doesn't mention him. Books I can find in Google and Google Books searches mention him in a line or two. He was a stockbroker with an avocation for poetry, a member of the Poet's Club and one of the few that T.E. Hulme brought with him from there to a group that met regularly together and, I think, all became Imagist poets -- Tancred definitely became an Imagist poet. Pound apparently had a low opinion of him. We don't even know if Tancred ever published a book of his own poetry. It seems worthwhile to have some information on him in the encyclopedia, given his associations, so merge to an article about those associations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, mostly per DGG's argument. Pound mentioning him in the cantos makes his name an extremely plausible search term, and for me tips the balance in favor of an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A mention in The Cantos is reference and sufficient proof of notability. As long as there is a stub, there is a chance it can be improved. Giano 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Giano... I respect your opinion. Would you please elaborate as to why a mention in The Cantos should suffice as proof of notability? I would like to agree, but I'm not sure I understand how that would justify a stand-alone article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poetry/archive.
