| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability
editIf you're going to remove the notability question, please share how this person is notable enough to belong in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.87.188 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that the great majority of the works are vanity/self publications (Runaway Spoon Press is this person's own press) and tel-let was a photocopied zine that grew out of a mailing list. Other publishers are non-notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.87.188 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- An anonymous IP with no other edits suddenly cares about removing an interesting minor poet from Wikipedia. I wonder why. I'd say he's borderline, but since I am on the whole an "inclusionist", I think we are better with information about him than not. He's interesting. His essay on mimimalism is insightful. He gets a lot of google hits [1] and there are a number of scholarly articles related to him [2]. BTW, it's virtually impossible to get this sort of art/poetry published by mainstream presses - because there is no market for it. Paul B (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted that tag. There is no doubt that Contemporary Authors Online, Scientific American, and A Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes are reliable sources that establish notability, and I'm pretty sure New Explorations In Indian English Poetry is, too.
- From WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
- If anybody disagrees, take it to WP:N/N and we'll waste another few minutes of our time here on earth. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Bob's Book
editCan Bob's Book be listed on the SAQ page now? I've reviewed it here. Knitwitted (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did you know that you're banned from any SAQ topics? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still full of interesting news, Tom. How is Bob G. related to the SAQ unless his book is WP:RS for the SAQ which apparently per Paul B's response, it is not. Nice try though. BTW... How's your comedy act on Amazon going? Knitwitted (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I ask in all seriousness - why oh why are you so obsessed with this book: which you haven't even read if the page you link to is to be trusted? (and BTW, Shapiro's article has existed since 2006, long before he wrote his SAQ book). Paul B (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Paul... in all seriousness... I am sorry to be such a knitwit but it is disappointing/frustrating when it's okay to post Bacon! You'll fry for this! on the Baconian page but it's not okay to post a Cerebrally dysfunctional guide to the SAQ on the SAQ page. Maybe you can see my point that the Baconian page is a child of the SAQ page... and to me, everything should be consistent so people like me won't make the mistake of not realizing that something of fun that is allowed on one page would not be allowed on the other. Appreciate your "why oh why"... and thanks for the opportunity to write "SAQ" a few more times despite my ban. Best wishes, Knit :) Knitwitted (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The addition to the Bacon! You'll fry for this! joke was explicitly in the context of a section on references to Baconism in popular culture. Do I think it's notable? No I don't. It seems utterly trivial to me. But I tried to show willing by creating a section on popular culture references in that article around your trivial addition. It's called showing good faith, and it's a way of trying to help an editor to become genuinely productive rather than disruptive. Such list-like "in popular culture" sections are generally discouraged (see WP:TRIVIA) However, they are not banned and there may be times when they are legitimate - see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. The Grumman book was presented by you as a serious and/or notable piece of scholarship on this topic. You keep trying to list it on pages. You've never read it, (though apparently you already know it's a "bad" book without having done so). Your motivation appears to be pure disruption to make some sort of point, though the point itself is barely intelligible. And yes, some things are allowed on some pages but not on others, just as some sources are acceptable for some topics but not others. Horses for courses. BTW, I too am now an owner of the Great Book, though I'm surprised that a visual poet is so poor a judge of good page layout. Paul B (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats on your purchase!! I hope your life will now be meaningful because of it. Best, Knit P.S. Sorry your copy has poor page layout as I've failed to note such shortcomings per my copy. Knitwitted (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- See pp.10-11. Also, frankly, the whole thing is totally unjustifiable. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats on your purchase!! I hope your life will now be meaningful because of it. Best, Knit P.S. Sorry your copy has poor page layout as I've failed to note such shortcomings per my copy. Knitwitted (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The addition to the Bacon! You'll fry for this! joke was explicitly in the context of a section on references to Baconism in popular culture. Do I think it's notable? No I don't. It seems utterly trivial to me. But I tried to show willing by creating a section on popular culture references in that article around your trivial addition. It's called showing good faith, and it's a way of trying to help an editor to become genuinely productive rather than disruptive. Such list-like "in popular culture" sections are generally discouraged (see WP:TRIVIA) However, they are not banned and there may be times when they are legitimate - see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. The Grumman book was presented by you as a serious and/or notable piece of scholarship on this topic. You keep trying to list it on pages. You've never read it, (though apparently you already know it's a "bad" book without having done so). Your motivation appears to be pure disruption to make some sort of point, though the point itself is barely intelligible. And yes, some things are allowed on some pages but not on others, just as some sources are acceptable for some topics but not others. Horses for courses. BTW, I too am now an owner of the Great Book, though I'm surprised that a visual poet is so poor a judge of good page layout. Paul B (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Paul... in all seriousness... I am sorry to be such a knitwit but it is disappointing/frustrating when it's okay to post Bacon! You'll fry for this! on the Baconian page but it's not okay to post a Cerebrally dysfunctional guide to the SAQ on the SAQ page. Maybe you can see my point that the Baconian page is a child of the SAQ page... and to me, everything should be consistent so people like me won't make the mistake of not realizing that something of fun that is allowed on one page would not be allowed on the other. Appreciate your "why oh why"... and thanks for the opportunity to write "SAQ" a few more times despite my ban. Best wishes, Knit :) Knitwitted (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I ask in all seriousness - why oh why are you so obsessed with this book: which you haven't even read if the page you link to is to be trusted? (and BTW, Shapiro's article has existed since 2006, long before he wrote his SAQ book). Paul B (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Still full of interesting news, Tom. How is Bob G. related to the SAQ unless his book is WP:RS for the SAQ which apparently per Paul B's response, it is not. Nice try though. BTW... How's your comedy act on Amazon going? Knitwitted (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- We've already given the reasons why it cannot reasonably be listed. They have not changed. If several serious Shakespeareans reviewed it and approved it, then it might become acceptable as a source. We wouldn't simply add it to a bibliography if it were not used as a source because that page does not have a free-standing bibliography, and that consensus is that it should not. Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm here out of curiosity to see if the subject of a biographical entry can say anything about it although I know Wikipedia doesn't allow a person to contribute to an entry on himself. It would seem to me that what an entry's subject thinks of an entry would be of interest. He might also be able to correct mistakes better than others. Not that I'm going to do either. I'm staying out of this entry, except to thank those involved for posting it. Bxb Grxmmxn (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not disallowed, but it's fraught with restrictions. If there are errors of fact I'm sure we will correct them if we can. High accommodance is our aim! Paul B (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Such was my impression. So I can just butt in and if I break a rule, I'll be told, but not expelled? Not that I expect to. --thanks for the accommodance, Paul! But watch out--if you use the word too often, you'll have to make an entry in Wikipedia for it. And you'll have to list my book in the bibliography for the entry!Bxb Grxmmxn (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware you can say what you like if it helps to improve the page. If we made an entry for all your coinages we'd need an new encyclopedia. I fear you suffer from what I often call neologismophilia with latent technoscientistic tendencies occasioned by the utopos of the latesixtiesplex. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)