Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poetry

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Cohen

Relisting: the (previous AfD of 23 August 2006) was closed early with no consensus because the article had been deleted, but it was then recreated (albeit in a shortened form). The original citation by Friday read:

"Vanity page about an academic, full of stuff like "Cohen describes herself as "math prof / mathematician / poet / writer / classical pianist /thrift-shopper / mother / grandmother / scrabbler extraordinaire". Sure, a sucessfull career as an academic, but unless having a job euqals notability, there's not much of substance here. Sometimes I'd speedy stuff like this, but there's already been some talk page discussion so I figure it's best to give this one some discussion in case there's disagreement."

I'm neutral here. Espresso Addict 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment MathStatWoman created the page and left a comment on the talk page using the first person. Seems like a vanity to me. SliceNYC 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete NN bio - original article was deleted because of copyvio, but it looks to me like all the copyvio has been stripped out of this version. Changed to keep based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. It now passes "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (IMO) Brian 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball Updated Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Delete blatant vanity for a minor academic/amateur writer/whatever else. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VANITY, WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. Want me to keep going? Daniel.Bryant 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No Daniel, that'll do for me ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay, I have no more business here :) *runs off to vote on other AfD's* Daniel.Bryant 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : I've seen others assert that "all professors are notable". Is that belief not in play here? Valrith 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think that has been superceded by WP:PROF. ColourBurst 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. She's a notable writer. I got the titles and other bibliographic information about her books from the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov/ TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the history shows that the original AfD was never completed and the AfD tag not added to the article. I found it tagged as a speedy copyvio. Part of the article was a copyvio and I deleted based on her being non-notable. After TruthbringerToronto pointed out that she did have some claim to notability I restored the article and removed the copyvio material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as vanity. Article introduces her as academic, and she fails WP:PROF with gusto. Leibniz 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• While NN as an academic, she might be notable as an author, given enough independent evidence. I'm neutral now. Leibniz 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If she "she fails WP:PROF with gusto", that doesn't matter, because she should be evaluated as a writer, and she is a notable writer. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you establish why she is notable as a writer? Right now the criteria for that is this:

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

I can see pretty clearly that her books definitely exist, but other than that, I see one possible non-trivial independent review, and no notable awards. The threshold for inclusion isn't that she's just written the books- they need to be notable books too. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my logic above. The subject does not meet criteria proposed in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and her works do not meet criteria proposed in WP:BOOK. As a professor she has not established herself as particularly outstanding in her field, and as an author she hasn't received any significant acclaim. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this nn vanity page per above. Pathlessdesert 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the current version now does meet WP:BIO based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. (Thanks Truthbringer) Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Comment I don't believe the article yet evidences multiple independent reviews of the sort that are meant. The MentalHelp.net one is a solid independent review. The Temple University Press one looks like it is - but on closer inspection they are the publisher of the book in question, so the review can't be called independent. Whe WISSP and Greenwood things don't muster up to being reviews in my eyes. 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This person is clearly notable if for no other reason than as an author. Amazon.com is often useful in finding independent reviews (I don't mean reviews by users, it lists "Editorial reviews") see [1] [2] . See also [3] & [4] (these are listed in the external links). Has anyone bothered to search the academic literature? (most of which is not google searchable). Mikker ^(...) 11:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. While she is obviously a prolific writer, I'm not sure that she's a notable one. The combination of her lterary works outside of her field (mathematics) argues a kind of notability, though. Since she did not create the page, I don't feel it is vanity or intentional self-promotion. --Dennette 13:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually I believe she did create the page. Not that it matters now- she's apparently left Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this in detail, but MathStatWoman has been accused of creating more than one supposedly autobiographical page. Not all the accusations can be well founded. Espresso Addict 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Plese see Talk:Marion_Cohen ... about half-way down the page, she signs in as Mathwoman (not to be confused with MathStatWoman, author of the page), identifies herself by name, and says, "I had not realized that I was in Wikipedia, and I'm pleased!" I had to look at the discussion pages of both users (and all of the history pages) to figure it out before I made my Weak Keep recommendation. --Dennette 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I haven't looked into this in detail but MathStatWoman has been accused of using a variety of different socks. I don't know whether any of the associations were proven. Espresso Addict 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, run-of-the-mill professor. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Zoe (above) and Pathlessdesert. Hope this is ok to say this time. Benjamin K 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I fall on the other side of Dennette's comments, in that while she might be a prolific writer, her work is not particularly notable. (And, as mentioned before, she is not notable as an academic.) 24.126.199.129 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the evidence provided by Mikkerpikker, appears to be notable. RFerreira 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a published author of many books, including reviews are listed on the article page, that meets WP:BIO. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikkerpikker --Pjacobi 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable authoe per Mikkerpikker — Paul August ☎ 04:27, 30 August 2006 (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.

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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Broun

Is the mother of a poet, but I don't think that makes her notable herself per WP:BIO. Written by editor who appears to have the same last name, so probably WP:VAIN too. Leuko 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and allow to develop. the parents of burns have some interesting ties with Lord Monboddo and robert burns visited (and wooed) monboddo's daughter at Monboddo House. there are data regarding interactions of robert burns parents with monboddo. Anlace 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep What makes Agnes Broun notable is the enormity of Burns' place in Scottish culture. She's not just the mother of any old poet. Burns is the poet of a nation. Agnes Broun may not be on the level of John Shakespeare, but from a reseacher's and literary scholar's point of view, her story is a valuable side-note, a fact confirmed by the archival interest in her life. For the record, I am not related to Agnes Broun. Finally, because of Burns' demi-god status, Agnes Broun has become a folk figure.--Wbroun 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as it currently stands to her son's page. If there's enough information to warrant a separate article, spin it out after it's been written there. If all she is is a side-note (valuable or not), then she'd do better as a side-note on her son's page. BigHaz 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(following the expansion) Weak merge to her son's page. There's more information about her, which is a great thing to see, but I'm still not totally convinced that she's notable for any reason than the fact of her son's fame. The fact that more information has been added, though, weakens my original leaning. BigHaz 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep what wbroun said is true. Agnes Broun is important to any resaercher or scholar who wants to learn more about Burns. I think she passes WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part/s of WP:BIO? BigHaz 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two, that I can see, maybe another, though I'd have to research.

• 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
• 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

And

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

I'm sure that there are some academic papers out there, though, as I said, I'd have to look. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

She may get through on the last one, but I just have a feeling that the majority of people out there who'll be after information on her would be happy with a paragraph or two in her son's article. As it's currently written (and I'll accept it as a work in progress) the only thing anyone could gain from reading the article is that she was Robbie's mother and outlived him - the second point of which is mildly interesting in itself. BigHaz 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "paragraph or two" on the main Burns article would be digressive and, frankly, disruptive of the narrative of the poet's life. As far as the article not appealing to a majority of info-gatherers, I stand guilty as charged. The piece, which is well-supported, is aimed at Burns scholars and serious enthusiasts, those who wish to "dig deeper" than the standard Burns-o-pedia entry. --Wbroun 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with adding a section to the bottom of Burns' own article entitled "family" and writing that he was descended from the Brouns and that his mother Agnes [insert rest of article here]? BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the article stands it offers no more than a genealogical connection. Nuttah68 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Robert Burns because this article is very short. I agree that this content belongs on Wikipedia due to Burns' importance but not as an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her notability has been established above, and I'm sure there's much more to be written. Having a short article is not a reason to delete. SliceNYC 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please Note I have now expanded this article as planned. I intend to add more, as time permits, for the edification and interest of scholars of Burns and Scottish folklore.--Wbroun 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Google scholar search for "Agnes Broun" as a phrase finds no academic papers, and four bools: two on Robert Burns, one Register of Wills and Inventories, and one on Early Modern Witches. I'm not certain if the last two are about her, but clearly any notability is from being Robert's mom, not independent. GRBerry 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One cannot be too surprised not to find any academic paper on Agnes Broun, esp. of those listed on Google scholar search. She will always be a minor figure of literary history and folklore, not the sort of person on which academic careers are built. Still, those academics and lay-scholars wanting to learn more about Burns will find joy and interest in learning more about his mother. If not on Wiki, where else? It's a little hard to grasp why one would want to suppress such information, tho I am totally new to Wiki, so I probably am misunderstanding some aspect of protocol.--Wbroun 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to put information on her is into an article on her son at the moment. There are other examples of historical figures with peripherally interesting family members having their biographies expanded with information on the family member. That way the information itself remains "unsuppressed". BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. Some of the info would certainly work in Robbie's article, but much of it just doesn't fit. There is a great spectrum of notability, and Agnes is on the lighter side, but Burns' scholars and enthustiasts will take interest nonetheless in these small gems. Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself and wear out my welcome -- I think I've said all I can in this debate. I appreciate people's interest in Burns and his family.--Wbroun 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep—Notability is not a formal policy, and the concept of notability is always contentious. A fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without original research. Am comfortable that this meets the criterion. That the article's author may be related does not invalidate the material; it only invites closer scrutiny. Williamborg (Bill) 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears that the subject is notable, per the monument in her name and per Mark Twain's referenc eto her. Per WP:N, "Notability cannot be measured for some historical and international topics". Remembering that schooling in those days is somewhat different to today, Broun, as the primary influence on Robbie Burns, could arguably passes WP:BIO, WP:PROF, IMHO. Ohconfucius 05:48, 29 August 2006 (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.

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. This is an odd one. The author requested deletion, and per WP:CSD it should be deleted per G7. However, this is a fairly developed article on the author of a clearly notable poem, so per WP:OWN I'm going to disallow a G7. The nom and one of the Delete votes where basically based on "I don't understand what this is." I don't see think there should be any real problem understanding what this is, especially if it were rewritten. It is a rather odd case require a rather unique solution - a bio of multiple persons in one article under their shared name - but makes sense because for notability purposes they are linked to the one poem. Interesting case. A fairly clear Keep in my opinion if one discounts CSD G7, which I have chosen to do. Herostratus 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Langdon smith

Delete. Is this an attempt at a disambiguation page or what? I don't really understand what this is about. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G7 (See comment by Chooper at the bottom of this discussion). --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 19:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep As per above, I'm not quite sure what this is. But if his sources are from the oxford dictionary of quotations, then these people might actually be notable and might deserve articles. Would need to do more research, though, and the article would need a complete re-write... will381796 05:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — me neither. Dionyseus 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Appears to have been a respected artist, poet and illustrator. See [5], [6]. Google search is much more effective for him without the middle initial.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "Articles on American Literature Appearing in Current Periodicals", in American Literature 1963, p. 123, includes a listing of an item by Gardner, Martin: "When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish", AR, XXII, 332-340 (Fall, 1962), which is described as being 'On "Evolution" by Langdon Smith (1858-1908)'. I can't find the abbreviations, so I have no idea what "AR" stands for, but I guess whoever is willing to rewrite the article may be able to decipher that. (I would have guessed American Review, but it doesn't seem to fit). Frederick L. Gwynn, "The Functional Allusions in Conrad Aiken's Mr. Arcularis", in Twentieth Century Literature 1956, p. 23, briefly discusses a reference to the line "When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish" in the work under discussion. (Both references courtesy of JSTOR.) Google indicates that this line has also been recycled in a song on the Muppet Show at some point. The LOC catalogue has a few hits for Langdon Smith both as author and illustrator. Tupsharru 06:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am open to the possibility of this article being deleted. It is admittedly crudely presented and the information must be regarded as unreliable as it clearly conflicts. It is not an attempt at a disambiguation page. It is a start which I will follow through on and which I hope others will support me on. To clarify my intentions for this article, it should become a biography of Langdon Smith, the poet and whatever else he was (sources conflict horribly). He is noteworthy for having written "Evolution," a well-read poem. I've been looking for more information on the man. It seems many people on various internet forums have expressed interest in finding out more about him. For this reason, I feel this article could blossom into something quite valuable. Then again, maybe starting from scratch with more solid information is the best way to go about this, so long as someone does it. I would like to contribute. Chooper 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Having done further research, it seems clear that this will be a difficult case. Langdon Smith's life does not appear well documented. There are several strong resources I may be able to enlist over the next week to dredge up more information on the man. It may ultimately be best to delete this entry all together, and begin a new one under the little "evolution," which might be appropriately referenced in a disambiguation page for evolution. In any event, interest in the matter is strong, but centered heavily around the poem rather than the man. Therefore, an article under that title may be better. Perhaps this is something some of you may be interested in helping with. Chooper 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If the life of Langdon Smith is not well documented, as Chooper stated, it seems to me that there should not be a Wikipedia article about him due to WP:V. If, however, there is strong interest in his poem, I would not oppose the creation of an article entitled Evolution (poem). --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I am away from my campus right now, so I've only had access to internet sources and my own limited literary sources. I will be able to say for sure whether he is well known when i return. For now, lets delete the article, and I'll begin writing a formal entry on the poem. Chooper 17:58, 22 August 2006 (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.