Artsandpalaver
|
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
License tagging for File:Yotr-main-new.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Yotr-main-new.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This article was previously deleted by a deletion discussion. I have redeleted it at this time, as it does not seem to address the issues of promotional content and lack of notability brought up at the deletion discussion. Do you have any reliable source material independent of the subject that addresses him in depth, as is required? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I explained above why I deleted it, including providing a link to the deletion discussion. You did not answer the question I asked. If you really do have good sourcing, an article might be possible, but I need you to answer that. Also, please post to the bottom of a talk page when beginning a discussion. I have moved your comments on my talk page accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Easy there, I'm not calling you a liar! Requiring sources is a normal part of our editorial policy, and is required for article retention. I entirely believe you about who he is, but that's not enough. There has to be a significant amount of source material addressing who he is. I did have a look through the sources you had, but they largely cover other issues and mention Neff only in connection with them. There's one direct interview with him, but that covers mainly only his books. What we'd need is more biographical sourcing directly addressing him, and that was the same issue the first time around. (Out of curiosity, who are you referring to as "both of us"? If someone else feels I believe they're lying, I'd like to clear that up for them as well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand your confusion, and notability certainly is confusing to some. You may wish to really take a look through the general notability guideline, as it may help clear up the confusion. Especially for a biographical articles on a living person, we really do require a good degree of sourcing covering the subject in depth. It's not that I personally don't believe you've verified what you've said, but again, that's not enough. To support a biographical article, we need a good degree of sourcing that specifically addresses the person. If that type of sourcing doesn't exist, we shouldn't have that article. That's true of anything else as well—we need to see a good degree of sourcing specifically addressing the person, not just name dropping them or mentioning them in passing. That's why the initial article was deleted as well. If you have deeper sourcing, I'd be happy to help you integrate it; if not, the article probably still doesn't pass inclusion guidelines. It does look like he's attracted some attention, maybe in the future there will be more out there about him. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Easy there, I'm not calling you a liar! Requiring sources is a normal part of our editorial policy, and is required for article retention. I entirely believe you about who he is, but that's not enough. There has to be a significant amount of source material addressing who he is. I did have a look through the sources you had, but they largely cover other issues and mention Neff only in connection with them. There's one direct interview with him, but that covers mainly only his books. What we'd need is more biographical sourcing directly addressing him, and that was the same issue the first time around. (Out of curiosity, who are you referring to as "both of us"? If someone else feels I believe they're lying, I'd like to clear that up for them as well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to respond here, was just confused ... As I noted on your page, I fail to understand why you don't see my links supporting the commentary as good sourcing. Why is Amazon, an interview in Eclectica, his own film, his references on Wikipedia, his staff page at Del Sol Press, etc., not good sourcing? Nothing could be better. Do I have to get an article in the New York Times only about Michael Neff for you to consider it good sourcing?
ALSO, if his novel is acceptable, if his press is acceptable, if his publisher is acceptable matter for Wikipedia, how can Neff himself not be acceptable to you personally?
I don't know you well enough, Todd, but it appears to me you are being rather overly harsh or picky with the rules as you see them. I could be wrong. I admit it. If so, my apologies.
Artsandpalaver (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how about we do this. The concerns at the first AfD were largely promotional material (which there still is, in terms of the excessive number of links to sites selling his stuff), and the thin sourcing (which is still pretty thin). I'm willing to restore a copy of the article to a userspace subpage for you, to allow you to edit the article there and address those concerns. As to another question you asked, yes, it's quite frequent that we will see a person who is involved in a notable endeavor, yet is not personally notable. That is more than possible, it happens very frequently. But I can see you feel quite strongly about this, so if you're willing to take a shot at it, I'm certainly willing to try to help you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I neglected to comment: you note I am "selling his stuff" and I am not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that I should refrain from noting he is the director of Algonkian Writer Conferences because that is "selling his stuff" then I can remove that if you say so, but I wish, as I note below, that you would be more specific. I fail to comprehend why Wikipedia would single Neff out for "selling his stuff" when the Wiki site is loaded with commercial corporate histories and thinly disguised promotions for same.
Artsandpalaver (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article you posted to me only has a single line about Neff. It certainly might contribute to the notability of Web Del Sol, as it does go into some depth on them, but does not have sufficient information for a biography. The issue here is not whether or not Neff is the founder of the organization, that is well demonstrated. That in itself, however, does not mean there is sufficient information for a biography of him personally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not disagree, however, you are presenting a condition that no one says exists, namely, that the NYT article referenced above is "sufficient information for a biography of him personally" ... of course, it isn't. The context I used it in was "proper sourcing" and now you've changed streams to find a different fault with the sourcing of the context I was addressing. It is only part of the biography, only a supporting link, only one link of many addressing sourcing or proper sourcing regarding the issue of whether or not Michael Neff is or is not the director/founder of WebdelSol.Com.
Thanks for your flexibility, but why don't we simplify this? What IF I had posted Neff as only a first time author published by Red Hen Press with a link to Amazon, the press, and the website for the novel. Would that be considered "thin sourcing" for you of a writer not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia?
Why do I ask this question? Because you haven't answered my questions about why the sourcing included it too "thin" for you. Again, If I mention he is the director of WebdelSol.Com (have you been there btw?) and link to a page on the website noting that, how can that be thin sourcing? If his press and his novel are notable enough for Wikipedia, then why isn't he notable enough? That doesn't make sense and in my mind goes against your reasoning.
I cannot possible continue to flail and flop with my time running out trying to second guess what you personally consider "thin" or not notable. This is very much dependent on your opinion. Please, can you be much more specific? What would qualify as non-thin sourcing for his authorship of the novel if Amazon and Wikipedia itself is not enough?
Artsandpalaver (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the trouble you're having here is that you're confusing sourcing to prove something (which you have), with sufficient sourcing to show that a subject is notable. The question there is largely, can we write a full biography of this person from the source material available (rather than just some factoids about them, such as what they wrote and what they do?) At this point, that doesn't seem possible. The sources tell me a bit about Neff's authorship, activism, and company, but not a whole lot. From those, I couldn't even tell you basic biographical information such as where he was born, where he lives, or how old he is. This indicates that the sources are not covering him, per se, they are simply mentioning him. We would need some sourcing that makes it possible to biographically cover the person, rather than his company or his books. Does that make more sense now? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
T,
What he wrote and what he does makes him notable, not basic bio info, yes?
As far as authorship? What is "not a whole lot"? What qualifies as "sufficient sourcing"? His Amazon listing, the press, and the novel website is not enough? What would be enough to satisfy you, T, in this single regard of his authorship? How many other links are needed? I can't fathom what you mean or what it demanded because the demands are beginning to seem somewhere between confusing and more confusing. Please, for the record here, answer this question I just put to you. What is "not a whole lot" with regards the authorship of his book--as a first example of what you mean.
And based on what you seem to be saying, anything that relates to Neff's accomplishments is a "factoid" but the real substance Wikipedia demands is where he was born and so forth? There is no website that states or proves his specific biographical information. Do we need to PDF his birth certificate and place it on a website? I know that is being a smart mouth, but I don't get it. Are you saying that Wikipedia requires that I find an Internet source that states Neff's place of origin, age, where he currently lives, and other biographical facts and if that isn't forthcoming then a webpage about him on Wikipedia isn't possible?
T, on this end, you *appear* to be changing streams again. First thin sourcing, then not notable, and now, nothing proving his birth place, etc. Maybe it just seems this way, but it really appears as if you just don't want this man on Wikipedia and you are determined to prevent it? It's just beginning to look that way from this viewpoint ... But again, I could be wrong.
Look, I still wish you could tell me precisely what I must do to straighten this out. I try to nail down the issues then we slip away to another set of issues, T.
Please!!! I am tearing my hair out. It appears you refuse to be satisfied regardless whatever I supply.
Artsandpalaver (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Artsandpalaver (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know sometimes this can be confusing, and I'm not trying to give you a bad time. I know myself how difficult this can be, the first article I wrote was deleted too, and it did take me some time to understand why. The reason we're looking for biographical information is because we try to make sure that there's enough information to write a full article on the person. What I might suggest, to start with, is to start a section at Del Sol Press (which could use some improvement anyway, and from the sourcing you've showed me pretty clearly passes the notability test) about its founder. If that at some point gains enough source material that it could warrant a separate article, it'll be split off in the natural course of things anyway. If it doesn't, we've still got material there. If you'd like to try that, I'll be happy to provide you a copy of the deleted article, I'm also happy to help you merge it in if you'd need some help with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear T,
You mean, go to the Del Sol Press Wiki page and add bio about Neff there? If I add bio to the WikiP page of Del Sol Press, then reference the Del Sol Press page on the Neff bio page, things will be in sync for a launch? I'm still fuzzy. And all the Neff information that I included on the failed bio page should be on the Del Sol Press page? Or just a portion? Or just the birth place, college, current residence, etc? I'm still fuzzy. Won't the Del Sol Press page still need to ref another website online with his birth place, etc., or no?
Don't you find it ironic that the press and novel would be considered sufficiently notable by Wikipedia and yet the author of them both isn't sufficiently notable at this moment? God, it's like saying McDonalds on WikiP is fine but Ray is a loser. I'm fairly certain that the novel and del sol press were not on WikiP when Neff first posted Neff's website. Neither was Double Room, the Robert Olen Butler prize, or the New York Pitch Conference. Should that not make a difference, T?
Artsandpalaver (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would appreciate if you not call me "T". I have no problem with you using my name (I put it on my userpage after all), but I generally don't go by nicknames. As for Ray Kroc, there have been full books written about his life. If the same is true of Neff, we certainly should have an article on him, but I do not see the same here. We do have notable organizations for which the founder is not personally notable. That's not to say they're not a worthwhile person, or that it lessens them in any way, just that we cannot write a full encyclopedia article on them. In that case, the best way to handle it would be to include the information we do have in the organization article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Todd,
"the information we do have in the organization article" ... What? How does this make sense, sir? We don't have, that is the issue, do not have, not "have" in the article. Missing bio info on Neff is the issue, as you noted above, yes? No? I am trying hard as I can to figure this out. You act good cop and bad cop at the same time. Why? Why are you stalling and leading me on to nowhere, only to more questions that won't be answered?
I asked you specific questions regarding what/which content you desire to see on the Del Sol Press WikiP page and you won't answer except to say "include the information we do have" and this following a previous note indicating you wished to see extra bio info like date of birth, residence, etc, that we don't have. "Do have" isn't the issue here. You have withdrawn this article on Neff because of information you allege you did NOT have. And what do you mean by "organization article" in the context of missing bio information for Neff? If by organization you mean Del Sol Press, then the press page does not have bio info on Neff. You said to include it, or I thought you did above. I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Why can't you be clear? Why can't you answer my specific questions so that I can figure this out and stop wasting time?
Am I crazy? Am I somehow not seeing some secret code you are giving me?
Artsandpalaver (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Todd,
Just for clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Allen ... Are you more notable than Neff because you filled out your appearances on IMDB as opposed to the confirmed existence of an ongoing operating literary press, literary community portal that gets thousands of page views daily, a debut literary novel, etc etc as well as a literary journal, e.g., that Neff founded and edits on a regular basis and that evidently publishes really good literary writers and poets? I'm trying to understand why you are notable enough for W and Neff is not. One of your links to an article is dead and the other to one review about you? Why is this review such great sourcing, e.g., more important in XYZ Canadian source just because it talks about you than a proof, e.g., that Neff, according to the New York Times, is the founder and editor of Web del Sol, the most important literary website on the Internet since 1994? It was the NYT! The NYT listening Neff's website as one of the TOP TEN on the Web, and to you this means he isn't notable enough? And this is just one thing. Is it because you work in more of a film medium? More of an entertaininment medium? Don't you think you have a distinct bias in making a decision you are notable over others like Neff in "lesser" mediums you deem not notable? And you are a comedian on top of it all! You seem from your website that you are an affable fellow. Why then, oh why are you being such a dictatorial fellow now and busting my dearly tired and adorable chops with all this stuff?
btw, Neff continuously edits and maintains Web del Sol, and this is just one thing. What do you do right now, right this moment, that makes you more important, meaningful, or notable than Neff in this one area alone? I'd argue that a man who publishes literature with his own press is more notable than you and your pursuits no matter what references you have. That is obviously my bias. You are judging Neff with your own biases, not with anything else. Isn't this evident?
You fault Neff, e.g., for not having a specific article written about his serving the ACLU, deeming the link I provided to be unimportant even though it proved the contention, and together with everything else, proves Neff is notable, i.e., Neff was instrumental in those years for being a daring plaintiff who challenged conservatives in their own states. He did the same thing in Michigan and I published an article myself and linked it to the WikiP page you deleted that proves he worked with the Government Accountability Project on free speech issues. Not one of these by itself is important, but to sum it up, the man publishes speech and protects it with his own skin. How is that less notable than your various comedic appearances and small film roles, etc? Can you tell me? And how is anything you've written more notable than Neff's novel, Year of The Rhinoceros? Do you think, honestly, you would have the same reaction if you were not a Canadian but an American? Would these issues be more notable to you, or do you think you are totally free of biases of any kind?
What makes you so notable, Todd Allen?
Artsandpalaver (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what makes you think that's my name, or that that article's about me? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm an attorney, Todd Allen, and you just gave yourself away with this response. Wrongfully accused act very differently, and never ask questions like you just asked. Also, the Todd Allen on your website looks like you and he lives near Seattle, in Vancouver area. It's you, sir. As for your Wikipedia page, you don't meet the guidelines for notability as stated by Wikipedia. I've reviewed them. Now, I'm not saying you're a hypocrite because I have not finished investigating your claims on the page, but I hope that is not the case. If you do meet the guidelines, then I'd like to know how, precisely how. Oh, btw, before I forget, according to Wikipedia guidelines, Neff also qualifies because he is "a person who made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Michael Neff and Frederick Barthelme are the grandfathers of literary art on the Internet. They pioneered it, started it, nutured it, and brought scores of other magazines onto the net.
btw, you are really a cute fellow on your home page, an adorable looking guy. Why do you use that Canadian hippie pic on Wikipedia? If I come to CA will you show me around?
In the near future, I will post another Michael Neff page focusing on his authorship and WikiP guidelines that specificially note that WikiP desires pages on published authors. I hope we can work together successfully in the near future.
btw, also, I wasn't trying to suggest you're going hard on Neff because he is an American you are Canadian, it was rhetorical. Perhaps you are, perhaps not, but your hard line wasn't making sense.
Artsandpalaver (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a user, but I am looking into poetry contests, was researching Del Sol, found this page, and then noticed that you 'artsandpalaver' just reverted a contribution that claimed that Del Sol was several months late in awarding this year's prizes. Were they, in fact, not late? You also seem very invested in the inclusion of an article on Michael Neff. Are you Michael Neff? Crossposted to Seraphimblade's talk page. 222.62.120.189 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Year of The Rhinoceros has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Year of The Rhinoceros – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Yotr-main-new.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Yotr-main-new.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
The article New York Pitch Conference has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Completely unsourced other than the external link to the pitch conference website, and I can't find any reliable sources for it.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 21:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)