This "Seth Abramson" article is a vanity autobiography. He has obviously written it himself to promote his minor work. There are thousands of "poets" published in thousands of tiny magazines no one reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipLevine (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The article references a dozen publications which are themselves Wikipedia entries, making the "tiny magazines no one reads" comment above a bizarre one in this context. The history page for this article makes clear that it was not written by its subject, so that observation too is nonsense. It appears this user has only come on Wikipedia for the purpose of vandalizing this page, as this user has made no other contributions whatsoever to Wikipedia. Additional attempts at vandalism should be dealt with as such. And incidentally, Boston Review alone has a circulation of over 20,000; the total circulation of the dozens of journals referenced here (which are in many instances prominent in the field) is probably approaching if not over 200,000, not to mention the annual traffic of the subject's blog (there's a link to the stats in the article) being just shy of 100,000 visitors. In the field of poetry this is significant.Burks88 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This article clearly does not met Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines for creative professionals. Subject is not cited by his peers or regarded as an important figure, and subject's book hasn't even come out yet, much less become a significant monument. As a frame of reference, only four of the last ten winners of the Yale Younger Poets Competition, the most prestigious young poet award extant, have pages at all, and none are half as long as this. Subject's publication credits are extensive but not remarkably so. If such a record makes him noteworthy, then thousands of other minor American poets, living and dead, could make the same argument. It reads like a vanity entry. 76.254.26.125 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the same thing was said by the exact same IP address a couple of weeks ago (accompanied by an attempt to "blank" this entry, which was deemed vandalism by another Wikipedia editor), all of which led to an AfD debate--a debate that resulted in a unanimous "Keep." More importantly, the fact that far too few poets are acknowledged by Wikipedia is by no means an argument for removing those that are--in fact, it suggests that not only must current entries be protected, but significantly more entries should be written. This entry (at link 9) indicates that the number of unique visitors to the subject's MFA blog was, just in March 2008 (i.e. last month), a hair shy of 70,000. That makes the "not regarded as an important figure" comment erroneous, especially as the subject appears to be co-authoring the only major book on the topic with which the blog is concerned (i.e. MFA in CW admissions processes) available in the United States, and that 70,000/month figure represents approximately three times the total number of working poets in America today (estimated recently by Ron Silliman, the top blogger in this field, as being about 20,000). The "significant monument" test seems to have been derived wholesale, just this moment, by the IP address above--for every YYP-winning poet not listed on Wikipedia, there are 20 poets of a stature similar to this poet who are. If the standard were that the subject had written a book that was a "significant monument" in literature, the number of well-published poets represented on Wikipedia right now would be even more dismal than it is. Moreover, the "not cited by his peers" comment flies in the face of the entry itself, which shows that the subject has been interviewed (most recently by Inside Higher Ed) on the subject of MFA programs; a Google search apparently turns up additional interviews and countless references by peers. For a 30 y.o. poet to have published as extensively as the subject of this entry is indeed remarkable, particularly as the journal publications listed here are mainly Wikipedia entries themselves (inherently suggesting the notability of these publications) and one of the two book publications is out-of-genre (suggesting a broader audience than merely the poetry-reading one). The length of the entry is immaterial; if every entry in Wikipedia were as thorough as this one, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. It would seem that the IP address above should get started on adding entries for the remaining six YYP-winning poets referenced in his/her comment, not crusading to remove a poet clearly at the level (publishing- and notoriety-wise) of countless other contemporary poets aged 24-35 and listed on Wikipedia. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I never blanked the entry. That may have been another user. I believe I suggested it for deletion, admittedly via the improper procedure, for which I apologize. But other users have suggested deletion, and still others have suggested this article be trimmed, so if there is a crusade, I am certainly not the one waging it. The "significant monument" criterion was not my creation, but rather is quoted directly from Wikipedia:Notability (people), under the criteria regarding creative professionals. The subject has published widely and doubtlessly has a promising career and future; however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of contemporary poets, and citing other possibly non-notable poets who have pages is not a justification for this article's existence or length. The MFA blog in question was not started by the subject, and he is merely one of 19 listed "contributors," so citing its traffic as establishing his notability is highly suspect. In fact, another author started the blog and wrote the first (and only, at present time, according to Amazon) edition of the MFA book, so to attribute both of them to subject is disingenuous at best. The criteria for notability of creative professionals exist, and subject rather clearly does not meet them. The tone and length of the article itself, as well as the tone and vehemence of the commenter above, continue to suggest a vanity entry.(76.254.26.125 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC))
Given how many Wikipedia editors have worked on and approved of this entry, and the fact that it was not written by its subject (as the above consistently attempts to intimate), it's not clear what the vehemence of a single Wikipedia commentator has to do with anything. Of more concern are single-purpose WP accounts, sock-puppet accounts, and anonymous editors, particularly if they target a single article for deletion, even after a unanimous-Keep AfD. On a separate note, the comments above are again erroneous--the 70,000/month figure is for the subject's personal blog, not the MFA blog (the latter of which is run by Tom Kealey, another WP entry, and the co-author of the Creative Writing MFA Handbook with the instant subject). It certainly cannot be argued that there are more than a handful (at most) of American poets whose personal blogs are on pace to get well over half a million unique visitors in this calendar year. And as to the co-authorship, its significance could easily be determined via any sort of research into the subject--both the subject of the entry, as well as the subject of MFA admissions generally. Again, the argument of Anonymous, above, seems to boil down to this: there are others even more deserving than this subject for WP inclusion. We agree on that. So those other entries should be written, and ASAP. Which says absolutely nothing about the status of this article post-AfD. It should also be noted that this entry was vetted for "neutral tone" months ago, and that tag was removed after the article was heavily edited by multiple sources. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Kealey's entry is an odd justification for this one, considering that it's currently tagged as having dubious notability. And accusations of anonymous sock puppets are similarly odd, considering that all of your (signed, at least) contributions regard this page in particular, and that there exist on Kealey's talk page numerous unsigned posts in defense of its notability with a remarkably similar tone to yours. It seems that you, fellow anonymous user, are inordinately concerned with pleading the notability of this subject, directly and by extension. So I think there should be no stones thrown here. But regardless of that, and regardless of your misrepresentation of my argument, my point is an impersonal one. It is exactly this: there are clear and simple criteria for notability of creative professionals on Wikipedia. This subject meets none of them. (Blog traffic, incidentally, is not one, nor should it be. I'd hope the literary world does not rank its poets by the popularity of their blogs.) I'm the second user to suggest deletion, and others have suggested extensive cutting. I reiterate: this is an encyclopedia, not a directory of young poets, nor a directory of your friends, nor a forum for your vanity, as the case may be. (I continue to surmise the latter.) The criteria are few and simple and clear. None of your arguments thus far have addressed them.(76.254.26.125 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC))
Kealey's entry is not a "justification" for this one, and mentioning it doesn't make it so; likewise, mentioning that it's been tagged, possibly by you, doesn't make it any less a WP entry. You've made numerous intimations here that I won't respond to, except to say that when I sign my posts it is under an account with which I've made numerous contributions to WP other than this entry's discussion page (and am still a little mystified as to how you'd claim to know otherwise, but that's neither here nor there). There is no "pleading" here, Anonymous: the history of this page shows more than a dozen editors, an originator that is not the subject, and an AfD debate which--in voting by three editors previously unassociated with the page--resulted in a unanimous "Keep." I respond to your comments merely because a person who's attempted to speedy-delete a page pre-AfD (getting immediately vetoed by a fourth WP editor) would probably have no qualms about attempting it post-AfD, too. But my argument is clear and consistent: a poet of this age, with the publications cited (two books, editorship of a journal, more than sixty journal publications [many of them WP entries themselves], an internet presence of significant popularity, and so on) meets the notability requirement for WP, whether or not you feel it's the best exemplar of notability on WP (and let's be clear, I haven't claimed it is, either). Your YYP-based argument was specious, and you're aware of this--it was a misstatement of both the letter as well as the spirit of the notability guidelines (as it implied that if not all the YYP winners are on WP, they're not all notable, which means anyone who hasn't won the YYP isn't notable; it's pretzel-logic). As to trying to trace the several million WP users based on "tone," I'd simply note that you and I have the same writing style and, to my ear, tone. Are we the same person, trying to stir up controversy needlessly? Only clairvoyants such as yourself could say. But I've stated my points clearly and unambiguously, have tried to get you to refrain from misquoting/mis-describing the entry and its history, and you just happen to disagree with me. Which you're more than entitled to do, of course. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's now more text on the discussion page than in the article! Step one is to strip out all the references that are not to blogs (per WP:RS) or to primary sources (per WP:NOR -- e.g., that statcounter link needs to go) and see what remains. Is there any coverage of the subject that is not on a blog, for example, but in an edited, secondary source such as a newspaper, book, so forth? If so, we need to work from that; if not, it needs to go. That's a pretty easy trim to do, and I suggest 76.254.26.125 and Agrofe begin there. 128.135.70.245 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS is very strict on blogs (and any other self-published source), especially when it comes to biographies (see WP:BLP.) If a fact cannot be established by a reliable source (generally, a third party, edited source), it should generally not appear -- truth is not the issue, WP:V and WP:NOR are. Listing things in "see also" is not useful; the information needs to be integrated into the text; see WP:EL for guidelines on the limited things that should appear. As for not wanting others to edit the page: WP:AGF and complain only when rules are broken. 128.135.70.245 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't write the article "defensively"; report the facts about the subject contained in good secondary sources (e.g., not statcounter, but an article discussing it) and leave it at that. Good luck. Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(Note: I am the same user as 76.254.26.125) A few factual clarifications: US News and World Report ranked MFA programs in 1997, so subject absolutely did not perform "the first-ever ranking process" of MFA programs, and, as was previously mentioned, subject is in fact only a contributing author (subject is not listed as co-author on Amazon or the publisher's website) of the second edition of the MFA book -- the original was entirely the brainchild and work of another person. To reiterate yet again, subject clearly and obviously does not qualify as a notable poet (i.e., a creative professional) under WP:Notability (people). I strongly suggest both the above commenter and any editors involved in the evaluation of this article read (or re-read) those criteria. The commenter above continues to attempt to define ad hoc criteria by which subject is notable as a poet: blog traffic, number of journal publications, editorship of a journal subject himself co-created (and therefore may have appointed himself as editor of), and age, none of which are relevant to WP guidelines for notability of creative professionals. In fact the WP criteria are clear and established, and subject simply does not meet them as a creative professional. Such obscure facts as placing a manuscript as a semifinalist in a second-tier poetry prize and publishing in minor journals such as Copper Nickel are essentially trivia, not encyclopedia content, and further are so insignificant as to make one question whether anybody other than the subject himself could or would have included them. The fact of the matter is that subject does not at present time even yet have a book in print. Since the primary argument presented thus far for subject's notability is blog traffic, subject should be included in WP as a blogger, if at all. I am unfamiliar with WP's notability criteria for bloggers and unsure whether they exist (and not inclined to research them), so I'll leave that discussion to others.(76.254.28.171 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Guys, seriously, you all are weirdos and you all need to chill. The AfD was keep, and standard practice is to wait a few months before going down that path again, if you must. I am going to move this discussion to an archive page tomorrow -- I think it is bad form to discuss someone, like this, in a public forum -- unless there are objections. Sdedeo (tips) 20:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)