Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Nelson

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. Michig (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Nelson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Largely talks about her own publications that she manages. It is decently written and has citations hence the AfD route. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a lot of web sourcing and article itself seems to be a CV with a lot of OR. SPA-created. May be vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralDelete borderline promotional; clearly fails the GNG The article has been significantly improved since my original !vote. That said, I'm not sure even a significant improvement is enough to overcome the standards of GNG as much of the sources added are short PR bios in "About" sections, fleeting and incidental mentions that don't offer biographical depth, or non-WP:INDEPENDENT. Nonetheless, I'm not as entirely confident this is as overt as a failure as I was initially and will hold-back on !voting to see the continued input of other editors. Chetsford (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, unlikely that this article is a "vanity" page as alluded to by Agricola44 above, it was created by a new editor as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, 4 1/2hours later up for deletion, it would have been nice if the nominator, Classicwiki, had contacted the contact/trainer of the event, lirazelf, and discussed any concerns before nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolabahapple and lirazelf, I had no way of knowing that this article was part of the Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, as it is not mentioned in the edit logs notes or in the talk page for the article. So in quickly reviewing the edit log, it just looks like lirazelf moved it from the Draft space. As I noted, the article was decently sourced and since it had been moved from a draft space I chose the AfD route instead of the harsher CSD or PROD. As part of the AfD process, PayTheLibrarians was notified that they can advocate why the article belongs on Wikipedia. I honestly don't like to bite the newbies and I apologize if I did, but there are 4015 total unreviewed pages on Wikipedia as of now. Much less than a year ago, but still a substantial amount. At the end of the day, I still think the article still fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, the notability of this author/poet needs to be better established. If that means going back to the Draft space or getting a significant revision I am all for it. Again sorry if I stepped on any toes, the more people editing and creating for Wikipedia the merrier. I had no clue that this was part of some organized effort. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Classicwiki, no probs, agree difficult to know that it was part of a GLAM event, it would be good if "GLAMeditors" tagged any GLAM article talkpage with a link to the relevant event page. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Classicwiki & Coolabahapple, thanks for spotting the editathon connection - I've just added the editathon tag, better late than never. (I've taken to adding these on GLAM event articles recently, this one slipped through the net.) Any help appreciated! Thanks for the understanding.Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is borderline GNG. I'd like to keep and work on it. Her press has won the Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets and should be mentioned prominently in the article so of course the article will "talk about her own publications that she manages". Her poetry seems to have been published around. This should be kept. I fail to see vanity or promo anywhere. The creator is not a SPA, they are someone who participated in an event to create the article. Elektricity (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Elektricity, actually, Happenstance Press didn't win but it did make the short list of the Michael Marks Publishers' Award (also see here) which is still pretty good. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple I think it was shortlisted twice and won once. http://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poetry/publishers/happenstance-press Elektricity (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, serves me right for not fully reading Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets article, which has one of its poets on the 2013 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, another winning in 2015, and HappenStance shortlisting the Publishers' Award in 2009 and winning in 2010:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) *and another of its poets on the 2016 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, see here:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue that the poet does meet WP:GNG although this could be better established - I've added Nelson's inclusion in the "Modern Scottish Women Poets" anthology to contribute to this. Can also confirm that it's not a vanity / SPA, have now added the editathon tag on the talk page to make this more clear. Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now also added additional information about early publications and an award. Lirazelf (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the poet does meet WP:GNG and in particular her work "How (not) To Get Your Poetry Published" seems to be pretty influential in supporting other developing or lesser known poets to get published. She is an award winning poet, works as a critic, runs a (seemingly successful) small press publishing the work of other poets, has performed at the Scottish Poetry Library, the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and the StAnza Festival. She has also been an invited guest at a 2016 University of Edinburgh academic event - the Scottish Women's Poetry Symposium. I agree with talk that some of this detail needs to be added to her article to improve it. Ammienoot (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nelson is well known for her poetry, mentorship of others and for her reviews of the work of others which have appeared in many notable journals. Her review essay (2013) in the Dark Horse poetry journal has been well-received and attracted follow-up articles from other notable writers and poets such as Kei Miller who have applauded her thoughtful treatise on the subject.Stinglehammer (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The descriptions in the article have been improved. There is now a range of sources included and these show that this individual is well regarded in the poetry publishing community in Scotland. I think notability has been established when judged by WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the key things are winning (jointly) the Jerwood Aldeburgh Prize and her press winning the Michael Marks Publishers' Award. These push her into notable for me. I think the section on Poetry in the Age of Hype could be cut though - not clear that it received significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first looked at this article I was doubtful, but the recent work done on the page would seem to show that there are a range of source that would suggest the subject is notable. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.