Talk:Seth Abramson/Archive 2

July 20 Edit

Resume and unpublished material don't cut it. Neither does "Nominated". Out of date websites and professional blogger? Placing comments to something online is not "media reference". I left a couple but this is as absurd as claiming you're a journalist because your letter to the editor got printed in the daily rag.

Actually, this person barely scrapes by as notable. Check around, this is very week stuff. This page should not be any bigger than it is and some of the material I left is weak (i.e., media references).--Agrofe (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who tried to quick-delete the entire entry a little while ago? That was undone by a prominent/high-level Wikipedia editor, and this edit has been undone, too. An author who's unanimously been voted "keep" on an AfD can't just have his/her entry gutted like this. You've removed two of the author's three books (leaving only the one without a publisher, which says something about your intentions with respect to this article), nearly all of the author's publications (including a dozen or more which are identified as notable by Wikipedia by virtue of them being Wikipedia entries themselves), and two of the author's three listed anthologies, one of which (Best New Poets 2008) is exactly the sort of publication which solidifies this author's notability. Under "media references," no entry but one was older than 2004, which makes your claim that this data is out-of-date unsupportable. I think maybe the 2001 entry under "media reference" should go, and some of the "other publications" (that list is too long), but everything else there is relevant, and most of your comments above make no sense (none of the media references are merely "comments to something online"; given the dearth of awards for bloggers nomination for something like a Koufax Award is significant [and again, the Koufax has its own Wikipedia entry]; the article contained no "unpublished material," unless you mean two full-length print books coming to market in the next nine months; a defunct website is relevant if it's significant to an already-notable-voted bio). Given your history with this article, any additional editing by you will be reported. If your feelings about this article are shared by others, then someone without a history of vandalizing this article (i.e. attempting a speedy-delete just days before it received a unanimous "keep" vote on AfD) can weigh in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.34.101 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All that said, what concerns me is your history with the article and the nature of your edits here--I do agree, though, pruning is needed. I edited out one of the two blogging nominations (the one that's not a Wikipedia entry), removed the resume-like material (former employment as a public defender is totally irrelevant, I agree), pruned the "selected publications" list by ten or so publications, and made sure the "media references" list had nothing before mid-2005. You are wrong about anthologies and full-length books that are shortly forthcoming, however; this is common for Wikipedia-listed author pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.34.101 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Took out reference to nashua advocate, footnote, and media stuff related to that. Cut some journals from selected additional section and moved some journals from main part there. Everything else seems fine. Burks88 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

12.240.34.101, Get an account and show us who you are, won't you? You said on my talk page; "Don't know if you know anything about poetry, or publishing, but looking at the past history of the article it's clear you're trying to gut the article for reasons having nothing to do with improving it. Any further vandalism will be reported." I have no agenda but to remove wasted space. I still think any uncited article under publications should be removed. Also, the media references is absurd. By the way, go back and you will see that there were items from 2000 and 2001 one under the questionable media refs. These are comments the guy left online somewhere. Hardly media references. he left online. A lot of what I cut out other editors (or you) seemed to agree with. I also removed a site that had not been active for over three years. Don't bully cause you have more time than others to spend on Wikipedia. Report me oooooohhhh... There is no vandalism here and I did not suggest deleting the article. The "keep" was ambiguous.--Agrofe (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think the nominated stuff is spurious. And, someone please help me with the "Professional Blogger" non-senses. I tell you what, what don't you add "his" name to the Notable Residents, and Natives for Concord, MA and see what kind of response come from that? I think it will be a very objective gauge; right there next to Hawthorne and Thoreau. Did Emerson write any poems?... "Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,—— and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment" --Agrofe (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agrofe, i agree with removing final/semi-finalist refs. That said, your args for further cuts (and also your original Afd nomination) really do conflict with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so i'd ask you to consider that. i mean that respectfully. the good news is that add'l editing has removed the cruft/fluff prior editors were concerned about-- the article is a fraction of the size it was previously and what's left are ind. reliable sources under media, publication refs. that are mostly wiki entries, multiple cases of university press anthologizing (a key aspect of notability), and two forthcoming books, one which is the only one on the market in its field. i don't agree that the standard on WP is to delete any book/magazine references that don't have links-- generally speaking every poet on WP has a long list of book/litmag pub. history without links, that's reasonable given that linking to every single book/litmag would not be efficient. if you think those links are really needed, tho, all those litmags have web presences, i'm sure, and they can be added i'm sure. i do agree about "professional blogger" though and am deleting that. ps. on a side note, my recollection is that the media references section was added as proof of that req'd aspect of notability, that the subject is ref'd in reputable ind. media sources. Burks88 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Burks... Sounds good. I am not looking for conflict and in review of that I can see the point and its well taken. I am looking for some succinctness. I have no idea who this person is or have i read anything of his. Using wikipedia as a spot to post one's resume is what "raised my hackles". I think the media refs should be reviewed for correlation but, although the entry lacks any breadth or insight as to this persons artistry or creativity and just really a promotional lists of bullet points., it is much better than it was. Thanks for the objectivity.--Agrofe (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)