Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postbeat Poets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --VS talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postbeat Poets

Postbeat Poets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not sure about this one, never heard of this concept before. It reads like an essay and is completely unsourced, so I'm inclined to think it violates WP:NOR, as well as WP:V and possibly WP:N. Google only turns up 40 hits, only one or two are actually related to the topic. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article in progress...was gonna finish before I saved but power glitch caused early save(?) Having trouble with refs linking so I manually inserted until I work out bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. OR essay not grounded in sources. There is no set definition of "post-beat" -- some of the most prominent uses have been for people like Bob Dylan and Patti Smith but the article glosses over this. There is now a self-defined "community" using the terminology but this seems to use in-universe descriptions. This would have to be substantially rewritten to be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think we should give this article a chance. I think it needs a good cleanup and possibly a few more references to make it meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If the article hasn't been improved in a month or two, I would recommend renominating it here. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per D.M.N. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on it...just please don't delete it. you deleted my first attempt without giving me a chance to remedy the problems and this is a lot of work for a newbee. I'm taking out the opinion and hunting for more links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's promising, Jimcohn. At a first glance it is already somewhat improved. But there are very many statements that need references. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the definition of "in-universe descriptions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcohn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was inspired by our guideline for writing about fiction, which is not precisely applicable here. Essentially you shouldn't write from too far within a subject. The way I used it, I meant that there seems to be an insular point of view about what postbeat means. The guideline that actually applies is neutral point of view. Make sure that you are drawing references from major mainstream critics, not just those within the movement. As an encyclopedia, we are not here to tell the insider story, but rather to give an unfamiliar person context. Just as one central example, on whose authority is The Outlaw Bible such a central work to the movement? And are there other opinions of it? --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Senseless, when I google "post-beat poets I see "about 476,000"Jimcohn (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal recommendation would be a move to Post-beat. The "poets" is unnecessary and wrongly suggests a biographical (rather than textual) approach, and the version with the hyphen seems to be used in more formal sources. Also, we don't capitalize every word in a title unless it's a proper name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in progress, and appears to be improving. Photo is a likely copyvio though. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I do think there's a fair bit of original research in this article though.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, we can improve this article. I think the article should not be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editors,


Our thanks to you who are taking a serious look at our page and assisting us in making it useful to your viewers. That’s our goal too. We took in your feedback in over the weekend regarding source and citation and language and made a number of substantial changes to our entry, not the least of which was establishing, in short order, a clear scholarly trail from which this new field of poetics study is derived. This is the finished entry we wish to submit and we think it’s appropriate that it be published with Wikipedia as it is an underlooked cultural phenomena and not just an in-universe advertisement. Because we are new to this, please let us know if there is anything else we need to do. One thing we’d like more ordinary language information on is your licensing agreement and what is literally needed to get up the images we would like to use. Best to you all. JC Jimcohn (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment I'm a little concerned about this "we" you are referring to. You wouldn't, by any chance, be writing the article on behalf of the poets mentioned in the article, would you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see your own article Jim Cohn has been flagged for WP:AUTO, so I see the answer is likely yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jim Cohn... to name just a few Postbeat master poets with bodies of work deserving of serious study." Jim Cohn wrote that. He also created the article on himself which is now in the process of being voted for deletion. The whole thing smacks of WP:COATRACK and WP:COI, trying to tie himself and his colleagues to the notability of the Beats. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to the article on himself and the movement he claims to be a "master" within, Mr. Cohn has also created an article on his museum, which has since been deleted: The Museum of American Poetics.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You say "Jim Cohn wrote that." In fact, it was written by "Jimcohn." Are you suggesting that these are one and the same? Jimcohn (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was precisely my assumption. The editor who was creating all these articles about Jim Cohn was Jim Cohn. I take it from your comments on my Talk page that you claim not to be. Fair enough, WP:AGF requires me to take you at your word. However, please allow me to point out that a) if you are not Jim Cohn and b) you feel Jim Cohn is encyclopedically notable, you are in violation of WP:U, which states It is not permitted to edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless either (1) you are that person, or (2) you aren't that person, but it is your real name, and you make it clear that you are not that person. Regardless, my deletion votes are unchanged. Your decision to call yourself Jim Cohn and then set about creating all these Jim Cohn-related articles was not a wise one, IMO. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've blanked the Jim Cohn article. I'll change my vote here to Neutral, and let others decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question to the above editor On my Talk page, User:Jimcohn denied that he was Jim Cohn, signing his post as "Lewie Paine." See diff. The above vote to keep is from User:HOUSE OF PAINE. Is this the same editor, perhaps editing under a different name to comply with WP:U? I'd like you to be clear on that, for accuracy's sake and to avoid any appearance of sock-puppetry on your part. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a Google search reveals that this is the same person. See his Web site. Mr. Paine, there is a way to correctly change your name, per WP:UNC. What have you done here, voting under a different name in a nomination for deletion on an article you have created and argued in favour of as User:Jimcohn could be construed as a violation of WP:SOCK, though I am sure that was not your intention. But please be more careful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lissandrew (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC) - If a lay user may have a say, it would dismay me greatly were this informative article to be deleted because people remain underinformed with respect to Postbeat poetics. I am thrilled to find this article on the Postbeats, an article whose shortfalls are far less pronounced than those of many other Wikipedia articles, and an article that attempts to begin to chronicle a movement in need of a voice. The purpose of the article is to inform readers of a compelling niche within the international poetic movement, a niche whose intellectual antecedents can be traced to Allen Ginsberg himself. I strongly suggest that those who would see the masses of the world denied this edifying article take the time to familiarize themselves with the poets mentioned in the article, their histories, and the unique relationships, both artistic and personal, that they share (or shared) with one another. Why anyone would see the world denied knowledge of a movement that, by its nature, lacks much in the way of official chroniclers of its history is a mystery to me. The ability to chronicle just such a history is what makes Wikipedia most valuable in this age when even academic presses will not print what is merely true, but only what is both true and lucrative. I strongly encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of this article.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (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.