Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henry Leonard Poe
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. John254 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] William Henry Leonard Poe
The brother of a famous person is not famous. Speedy tag improperly removed, but here we are. Corvus cornixtalk 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Per Wikipedia guideline "relationship does not confer notability". asenine say what? 04:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, because the article asserts no notability beyond a filial relationship. An entire book was apparently written about the guy (Hervey Allen and Thomas Ollive Mabbot. Poe's Brother. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1926), so there has to be at least something of relevance there to Poe or otherwise, but anything of particular relevance could probably easily be added to Edgar Allan Poe without the need of another article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep.It is true that "relationship does not confer notability" but WP:BIO is more specific than that: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)". It does seem to be the case that there is significant coverage of W.H.L. Poe actually available. GoogleBooks gives 117 hits for him[1]. One of the books, from 1880, contains several pages of biographical material specifically about him[2]. Another book, from 1878, also gives fairly detailed info[3]. There are many more references on this GoogleBooks list that provide nontrivial coverage. His own book of poetry was published in 1926[4] and it is mentioned in many of these sources as well. After re-reading WP:BIO, it seems to me that he does pass its requirements, even if the case is not particularly strong. Nsk92 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Changing to Keep. The current version of the article is greatly improved, well-sourced and deserves a full keep. Thanks to Midnightdreary for improving the article! Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that anyone who has been the subject of a published biography should be considered notable (even if we may not agree with the reasons of the biographer for actually writing such a biography). So the book Poe's Brother mentioned by Good Ol’factory should also count towards his notability. The key part of WP:BIO reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". That seems to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep Wikipedia guidelines are not holy scripture. People certainly do want information on the close relatives of major historical figures like Poe. There's plenty of information out there, as others have said. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I've spent a bit of time looking into this and I don't think it's even close as to whether we keep it or not, though I can see why it would have been nominated. The fact that his brother was Edgar Allen Poe does not mean we should have an article on him, but the fact that he was covered in secondary sources does. While this is not a reliable source (it was apparently written by a college student, though it's sourced and intelligent) it gives some quick indication of the subject's notability. The book mentioned above, published in 1926, is actually titled Poe's brother : the poems of William Henry Leonard Poe, elder brother of Edgar Allan Poe ; together with a short account of his tragic life. An early romance of Edgar Allan Poe and some hitherto unknown incidents in the lives of the two brothers (it seems to be readily available in libraries). According to the page written by the student, the books 12 American Poets Before 1900, The Poets of America, and The Poe Log (only the last was published in the last couple of decades) all discuss WHL Poe. I think it's safe to assume that any credible biography of Edgar discusses his brother, since it seems they were close enough that William Henry may have published some of Edgar's poetry, and since Edgar apparently nursed his brother as he was dying and took on his debt which resulted in Edgar's imprisonment. In short, this is the brother of a towering literary figure who apparently had some impact on his life (while also publishing his own work) and about whom we can easily construct an article using reliable sources. Our Edgar Allan Poe article is a Featured Article but only briefly mentions his brother. This article could serve as a nice annex to that one, and perhaps some of the folks who lent a hand over there would be willing to help here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'm not thrilled with this; without his brother's fame, he would simply be a forgotten minor poet. But he has been the subject of more study than just being a brother would bring and there are more than sufficient sources for a biography. There also seems to be some confusion or dispute regarding authorship between the brothers which has interested scholars. Thus he is indirectly a figure of interest sufficient for WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The book Poe's Brother is not a biography. It's a short biographical sketch with a collection of his poems. It's also very, very slim. Most of what can be found on Henry Poe is a debate as to which early poem was written by which brother. Certainly, we can find plenty of sources on Poe's brother, just as you can plenty of sources on anyone's brother if that person is famous and has a biography or two. Does that make them notable enough in their own right? I'm torn on this discussion but I'm leaning towards a weak delete. (Note: I'm the guy that brought Edgar Allan Poe to FA) --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Granted, Poe's Brother is not a biography but a book of his poetry (as I understand, not the only one). I still think that it adds to his notability. Apparently, someone considered him an interesting enough poet (even if primarily because of his association with E. A Poe) to publish a collection of his poems. Most siblings/parents/children of famous figures do not do anything of note themselves and do not have similar items published in relation to them. Take, for example, such a famous figure as Babe Ruth. His mother, Kate Schamberger-Ruth, gets only 3 hits in GoogleBooks[5], compared to 117 for W.H.L. Poe.
- Second, I think there are situations where some figure is considered to be so important that their family history becomes important and their relatives, otherwise unremarkable, become notable because of the substantially detailed and significant coverage they receive. For instance, Vladimir Lenin's grandfather Alexandr Blank or Hitler's grandmother Maria Schicklgruber are examples of these. We may have some of the similar effect here, given how important a figure E.A. Poe is in the history of American literature. Nsk92 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, take Poe's Brother with a grain of salt. It took about 100 years for these poems to be collected, and then by not one but two biographers of Edgar Poe. I'd chalk it up to completionism in the Poe scholar circle rather than a real interest in Henry Poe himself. Even so, you'll note that the article up for discussion is now fairly substantial (and well-sourced). I change my "comment" to Weak keep. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work Midnightdreary! This was exactly what I was hoping would happen with this article, which is now in a much different condition than when it was nominated. It's now a completely serviceable Wikipedia article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, awesome work. Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, take Poe's Brother with a grain of salt. It took about 100 years for these poems to be collected, and then by not one but two biographers of Edgar Poe. I'd chalk it up to completionism in the Poe scholar circle rather than a real interest in Henry Poe himself. Even so, you'll note that the article up for discussion is now fairly substantial (and well-sourced). I change my "comment" to Weak keep. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep subject of multiple scholarly sources -- yes, because of his connection to the more famous Poe, but subject of them nontheless and so wiki-notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There are substantial references that establish notability. Just because he's less famous than his brother and one of the books used as reference is titled "Poe's Brother" does not mean his brother isn't as notable by wikipedia standards. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. While merely being related to his vastly more notable brother doesn't in and of itself confer any notability whatsoever, that relationship has led to coverage in print sources, biographies, and finding his own works, which have received scholarly discourse on their own. While much of that discourse is comparative to the work of his brother, that's irrelevant for our work here. The fact that such coverage exists is enough to warrant inclusion. Celarnor Talk to me 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep clearly sufficient sourcing for notability. Not everyone related o a famous person is necessarily non-notable. DGG (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Unfortunate and anti-encyclopedic nomination. If you're ignorant of the subject matter please give an editor more than 2 minutes to flesh an article out. In fact, a great deal of scholarship is very often devoted to the family members of important literary, political and cultural figures. Certainly the case with WHL Poe. Surprising though it may seem, we are trying to build a great encyclopedia here based at least somewhat on scholarship. --JayHenry (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- No need to be harsh. I think people need to keep in mind what the article looked like at the time of its nomination at AfD. It was nothing like its current form. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nominating an article for deletion is one of the harshest things that can be done on wikipedia, which is backed up by its fundamental tenet of good faith. Since this AfD was used as a means of clean-up, I think there should be some punishment taken against the nominator. I think that should be a general rule for all such abuses of good faith and misuses of processes. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Duly noted, but I have to disagree. Assume good faith that the nominator really believed that the deletion of this article was in the best interest of this project. As the resident Poe expert on Wiki (having personally brought four Poe-related articles to FA or FL status), even I questioned if Henry was deserving of an article (see my comment from early on in this process). The original article did not assert significant notability. The current version, which took a lot of work and scouring through several sources is not what the original nominator foresaw... and why should he? As far as he knew, this person was just Poe's brother who died young... is that inherently deserving of an article? That was the article that was brought to this AfD. I think the good news is that this nom really pushed for some work to be done to it. In the end, I think this has been a positive experience for Henry Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, I see no reason to assume bad faith of the nominator. They originally put it up for speedy deletion (which wasn't really appropriate for an article like this, but no big deal) and I declined the speedy with a specific note that this could be taken to AfD. The nom could have searched a bit for secondary sources, but failure to do so does not warrant any kind of "punishment" (and we don't really do that here anyway). Finally, as often happens during AfD's, the very fact that this was threatened by AfD led to significant improvements thanks to Midnightdreary. Nothing out of the ordinary here and a good result for the encyclopedia in the end. This article will probably be on the main page at DYK and that would not have happened had this not gone through AfD--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The state of the article isn't really my point. This was the 9th edit of a completely new user. We mustn't fetishize the "notability" guideline to the point of kicking new users in the teeth for having the temerity to attempt editing. The two-second google search shows a page at a university about WHL Poe and a collection of his poetry on the first page. I don't think the nominator should be punished, but it's hardly harsh to request that an experienced user exercise a little restraint and common sense when it comes to biting the newcomers. It wasn't as if this was a garage band. Someone could have kindly explained the notability concern, and just redirected the article to Poe after a day or two. Corpus was a good sport about this, kudos to him, and I'm happy the article is improved. That doesn't mean it was okay to kick him in the first place. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The state of the article isn't really my point. This was the 9th edit of a completely new user. We mustn't fetishize the "notability" guideline to the point of kicking new users in the teeth for having the temerity to attempt editing. The two-second google search shows a page at a university about WHL Poe and a collection of his poetry on the first page. I don't think the nominator should be punished, but it's hardly harsh to request that an experienced user exercise a little restraint and common sense when it comes to biting the newcomers. It wasn't as if this was a garage band. Someone could have kindly explained the notability concern, and just redirected the article to Poe after a day or two. Corpus was a good sport about this, kudos to him, and I'm happy the article is improved. That doesn't mean it was okay to kick him in the first place. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, I see no reason to assume bad faith of the nominator. They originally put it up for speedy deletion (which wasn't really appropriate for an article like this, but no big deal) and I declined the speedy with a specific note that this could be taken to AfD. The nom could have searched a bit for secondary sources, but failure to do so does not warrant any kind of "punishment" (and we don't really do that here anyway). Finally, as often happens during AfD's, the very fact that this was threatened by AfD led to significant improvements thanks to Midnightdreary. Nothing out of the ordinary here and a good result for the encyclopedia in the end. This article will probably be on the main page at DYK and that would not have happened had this not gone through AfD--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Duly noted, but I have to disagree. Assume good faith that the nominator really believed that the deletion of this article was in the best interest of this project. As the resident Poe expert on Wiki (having personally brought four Poe-related articles to FA or FL status), even I questioned if Henry was deserving of an article (see my comment from early on in this process). The original article did not assert significant notability. The current version, which took a lot of work and scouring through several sources is not what the original nominator foresaw... and why should he? As far as he knew, this person was just Poe's brother who died young... is that inherently deserving of an article? That was the article that was brought to this AfD. I think the good news is that this nom really pushed for some work to be done to it. In the end, I think this has been a positive experience for Henry Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nominating an article for deletion is one of the harshest things that can be done on wikipedia, which is backed up by its fundamental tenet of good faith. Since this AfD was used as a means of clean-up, I think there should be some punishment taken against the nominator. I think that should be a general rule for all such abuses of good faith and misuses of processes. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No need to be harsh. I think people need to keep in mind what the article looked like at the time of its nomination at AfD. It was nothing like its current form. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Speedy deletes on many subjects have a strong knack of being insulting, which this was. Solid enough to keep around.--Bedford 16:30, 17 May 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.
