Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Bourne

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. The discussion borders on no consensus (which would here default to no deletion in any case), but many of the early comments in favor of deletion were made prior to the substantial improvements to the article. Factoring that in, there appears to be a rough consensus to keep the article.--Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Bourne

Daniel Bourne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. After separating out his GoogleNews hits, there are only three that I believe are related to him, one only mentions him, a few cite him as an author and the other two are about a poetry reading that he did. He has published poems but no awards to speak of for them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable academic; fails WP:PROF guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable professor. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep After running into an absure deletion prod, I decided to come to the articles for deletion page and see how it goes. I now have a good deal of admiragtion for the dedicated people who plough through this list every day. I looked at a number of pages and had no basis on which to judge. However, this one is a real poet of some note. and, getting an appointment at a school like Wooster is no small achievement, either. He needs a better page. this one was probably put up by an admiring student. I'm going to drop him a note advising him to fix up his wikipedia pagel or perhaps I'll do it later this evening if I have time. For now, however, allow me to thank all of you who undertake the thankless chore of wading through the vanity pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please see WP:COI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - My understanding is that full professors - particularly at significant schools such as Wooster - are generally notable. - Philippe 01:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Can you point out what points of WP:PROF he meets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jauerback (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 May 2008

I took a look, added a few things, and it's pretty clear that he is being considered in the wrong category. He has an MFA , not a PhD. In other words, he is a poet teaching creative writing at Wooster because of his distinguished record poblishing and writing poetry. considered as a poet, and his record is distinguished. He is not a Phdprofessor who critiques and publishes about poets. He actually is one. I think he should be kept, or, if considered for deletion, considered in another category.160.39.35.24

I already voted to keep. I am writing to make you aware that I have added material to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a creative professional and an author, by the standards for such. 160.39.35.24's analysis is correct. DGG (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My geographic area; I would have never though a prof from the College of Wooster would pass WP:PROF. I guess I learn something new every day. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't see how he meets either notability standards of WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Here's the standards for a professor set at WP:PROF (which are similar to Creative professionals standards at WP:BIO):

1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

All the references for him are places he's associated with. There are no independent reliable sources that have any coverage of him other than a poetry reading.

2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field.

See Point 1.

3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature^[1].

He has published five books, two of which are translations of someone else's work, none of which are notable on their own.

4 The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

See Point 3.

5 The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

See Point 1 and Point 3.

6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

None.

Where am I going wrong? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, although it is difficult to get a job in his field, that doesn't mean diddly to WP:PROF, which he fails. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• KeepHe is poet, so WP:PROF does not apply. His translations are widely admired, and Artful Dodger is a good journal. This is what notability consists of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.33.150 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay, WP:PROF doesn't apply, but WP:BIO does. He fails that, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: he is a well known poet, and his magazine Artful Dodge is responsible for giving many poets their first publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.121.126 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep': despite that the article itself needs to seriously be redone, Dan Bourne seems noteworthy. Find someone who isn't an admiring student to help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.121.126 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (indented because of double vote)

• Keep He is publishing in highly-regarded literary magazines. That and the fact that he has books out form reputable pressesElan26 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• delete per Phlegm Rooster reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 May 2008

• Explanation of earlier Keep changed from Delete the significant notability would be as a poet. What appears to be his most-held work of poetry "The household gods" is held by 57 libraries, according to worldCat--which is not trivial, but not extremely important either. Whatever more established poets may have written on the blurb for the book are not reviews in any more sense than the publisher's reviews in Amazon--they're primarily publishers' advertisements. DGG (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are not like Amazon. anyone can write on Amazon. Book blurbs are by invitation, and the invitations are issued on the basis of the blurber being notable. also, usually, connectec to the publisher or author. but, still, notable enough to make the endorsement meaningful to potential purchasers. That said, a blurb is less objective than a review, albeit reviews are also often written by people connected with the publisher or the author. Do go back and look at the page. It was pretty bad when it was first posted, but since this began someone has gone in and created a page that, had it been this way when first posted, would never have been flagged for notability.Elan26 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Jauerback*I came boack to see how the debate was going. When you flagged it, I could see your point. And, indeed, flagging it has had the effect of making a lazy page creator turn this into a solid page. It now seems clesr, to me at least, that the page creator has now posted so many creditable achievements, and so many reliable sources that KEEP is a no-brainer. Interesting process and outcome.Elan26 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

• Comment - I acknowledge the article has improved substantially, however I see nothing to indicate how he meets the standards of WP:BIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. First, I do not think he qualifies under WP:PROF. He is known for his poetry and translations, not for his scholarly research. But he does seem to qualify under WP:BIO as a creative professional/poet/translator, even if the case is not very strong (but previous AfDs regarding poets show that such situations are not unusual and that it is often not easy to demonstrate notability there). The page has been improved considerably in the last few days and looks mostly up to speed now. GoogleBooks, even after filtering, gives 111 hits for him[1]. GoogleScholar produces 29 hits after filtering[2], some of which give explicit praise to his work and go into biographical details. For example, this:[3], an 2001 article in "Sarmatian Review", goes at some length talking about him. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, upon checking that one of his books has mildly significant library holdings, I changed to a keep. DGG (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Artful Dodge, the literary magazine that he founded. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?It is usual for editors of mazines to have pages of their own apart form the magazine's page. And Bourne is an accomplished poet and translator, independent of being an editor.Elan26 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

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.