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 delete. No notability established. I understand, and agree that it is a pity, that poets get little coverage, but this one's seems to be really very very little, not enough to establish notability of the subject and reliability to the article - Nabla (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Elsner

[edit]
Ana Elsner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person does not have sufficient notability to warrant an article. The article has been carefully constructed to give the impression that this person is a well-published and established writer, but a little online research suggests otherwise. I suspect this article has been written by the person it concerns, especially since it has mostly been written and edited by one user. Peejles (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a little online research" is not always adequate to determine whether a subject has adequate sources to write a high quality NPOV article. If the article is written by someone knowledgeable about the subject, then engaging them in discussion is usually the best way to determine if there are adequate RS to write an entry. Some discussion with the main editor might be helpful here. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "a little online research" is perfectly adequate to see very clearly in this case that there is no major published body of work to warrant an article on this poet, nor any available secondary literature, and this is backed up by my own specialist knowledge in late 20th century American poetry (which I mentioned below earlier). The sources given below to justify the article are misleading:

To join the Poets & Writers Directory, which the main editor uses below as a qualifying reason for this article, is in fact a free online service where anyone can register and create a profile and describe themselves as a writer. There is no selection process. The San Francisco Public Library is the only library in the world listed on Worldcat [1]that owns a copy of her book, so is one book in one library really enough to establish notability? --Peejles (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Correction The P&W Directory most certainly has an application and selection process. See Evaluation Criteria.- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - About Public Libraries: Due to reliance on public (municipal) funding and the budgetary and space constraints that derive from it, and in light of a tremendous volume of books submitted, every entry undergoes the most stringent review process by professional librarians and departmental editorial staff before a decision is made to include it in the catalog and give it shelf space. Many more books are rejected than are accepted. The fact that this poet's book was selected speaks to its merit. The SFPL is a venerable institution. Their expert judgment is impeccable. --CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to be ignoring the criteria - WP:CREATIVE - and the fact Ana Elsner is extremely obscure and has only been published once in a scarcely distributed book by an extremely obscure publisher who only seems to have published this poet and no-one else. The words "castles in the sky" spring to mind. --Peejles (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response A public library does not carry "castles in the sky", they carry real books by real authors, works that they judge to be worthy of the reading public's attention. --CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About Poetry Publishing - It is a sad but well-known fact that poetry is not a significantly commercial product. The market for poetry is minuscule compared to that of other literary genres. Therefore the large publishing houses shy away from taking a chance on, and incurring a considerable expense in, publishing it, with the exception of keeping up the well-established standard stock of textbook poets, mostly deceased, whose names assure 'brand name recognition' and a steady trickle of sales. That fact does not make contemporary poetry any less important in literary society, it does, however, curtail its widespread dissemination.
That is where small poetry presses come in. I have researched this area well and recommend that anyone interested in this subject read the Wikipedia article Small press:

"Since the profit margins for small presses can be narrow, many are driven by other motives, including the desire to help disseminate literature with only a small likely market. Small presses tend to fill the niches that larger publishers neglect. ..." and "Many small presses rely on specialization in genre fiction, poetry, or limited-edition books or magazines. ..."

I myself support such "indie publishers" because I have found through them a vast reservoir of contemporary voices that are compelling and mind-broadening, albeit continuously marginalized. Clearly InstaPLANET Press, this poet's publisher, falls into that category and should not be discriminated against based on its relative obscurity. -CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You lose that bet, my friend. I am certainly not a poet, merely a fervent admirer of poetry. (I wish I was a poet myself, but I lack the talent.) Cultural Universe is a generic term not protected by © copyright. Anyone can use it. I can use it without copyright infringement. I do use it because I like it. It has nothing whatever to do with the website you refer to, though I am aware of that site. CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 19:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



AfD is willful and unjustified

[edit]
The AfD flag was put on this page by an anonymous user. The authority of this individual, "Peejles", is highly suspect!

The article itself has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review and was rated by them as belonging to B-class. See Talk:Ana_Elsner.

To substantiate the merit of the article and the person it is about, go to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ana+Elsner%22&aq=f&oq= and you will see that this person is well established in her field.

Flagging the article for deletion by someone who has not identified himself/herself on the Wikipedia site must be construed as vandalism and shall be treated and reported as such.

Respectfully, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) User:CulturalUniverse , proud Wikipedian since June 2005
  • Comment. I did create my own user page, but I wouldn't say that people who don't do that are anonymous, as user pages frequently have little to no information about the identity of the user. I also don't believe people are required to create a user page. At any rate, the article still needs to cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but as to whether or not those sources exist, I suspect others would know better than I would. Rnb (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article concerns a poet who is extremely marginal. The press (Instaplanet) who have published her work seem only to have published her, and are not a major or significant publishing house. Her work is missing from all crucial surveys (indeed all surveys) of San Francisco Bay Area poetry [eg. see 'Bay Poetics', ed. Stephenie Young, (Cambridge, MA, 2006)]. Also, there is no truly independent mention/discussion/assessment of her work anywhere online.

The subject of this article does not meet any of the necessary criteria for inclusion whatsoever; if this 'poet' is deserving of an article, any have-a-go writer is. This article is wholly misleading, and paints Elsner as being a significant poet, when in fact she is overwhelmingly marginal. --Peejles (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not determining whether "a poet is deserving of an article" or if the person is a "significant poet". The sole purpose of the discussion is to decide if there are enough reliable sources available to create a well written NPOV entry. It is important to keep our comments focused on the purpose of the discussion, okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is very little "promotional material" about this poet on the web. In fact, with the exception of her publisher's site there are no commercial sites at all that come up in a search on this author. The sites that do come up in any web search are based on factual reporting on this poet and her activities by way of news coverage or other data dissemination. Of course the biographical material is traceable to the poet herself because she was the one being interviewed and sourced. User:CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "promotional" I merely meant stuff like "Ana Elsner will be reading her poems at <library branch or other venue> on <date>. Elsner is a multilingual writer, poet, artist and translator …" As for "news coverage," I don't see any. (You need not respond to this, as you've already made your opinion clear. And put on some shoes, for pete's sake. :-)) Deor (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deor, Yes, I will put some shoes on, eventually :) In response to the points you raised: -1- I could not find your quote "Ana Elsner will be reading her poems at <library branch or other venue> on <date>" on the article page. Actually, what I had done was put a representative mention of Elsner's readings into this paragraph here: Ana_Elsner#Readings, and link to two reputable sites for reference, The Academy of American Poets Event Listing and the Glen Park Library posting. -2- Re. your quote "Elsner is a multilingual writer, poet, artist and translator....", I got that basic stuff directly from 'interviewing' the poet via email, and confirmed it from the data on independent sites like this: The Other Voices International Project Volume 30. -3- Regarding news coverage, admittedly Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC etc. have not reported anything about Ana Elsner (yet!), but I did find other 'evidence' of news bulletins about this poet at various sites such as The Randall Museum Program, Heather World's article and others, all independent non-affiliated entities. I also found some printed mentions and reviews from sources that have no internet presence. I think we web-citizens often forget that there exist more traditional (and perhaps archaic) modes of news reporting and dissemination, to wit, the printed news papers which are fast becoming obsolete, yet were the major and only community conduit since 1605.
Let me say this (perhaps it does not count for much or any, but it certainly is my heartfelt testimony): If I, as a scholar, were not convinced of this poet's impact on contemporary poetry, present and future, I would hardly have taken the time to create a comprehensive Wikipedia entry for her and continue to research her. I was most gratified when on April 16, 2008, the article I created and maintain was approved and assessed as 'B' class by the WikiProject-Biography and tagged "This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group". It proves that the Wikipedia editors and admins in charge of biographies recognize the merit of my contribution. Why should their judgment be put in question now or at any time? CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - Don't remove this important biography from Wikipedia. Ana Elsner is one of the few modern American poets who is not mired in the Hallmark swamp. Undoubtedly that accounts for her being ignored among the chattering classes or the paucity of her references on the Google slag heap. But those of us who follow her work are treated to an unequaled view of the societal condition from a place in the soul we never knew existed. When you finish an Elsner poem, lay it on the nightstand, turnout the light, and turnover, you're likely to stare into the darkness saying over and over, "My God, that's how I feel too. But why didn't I realize it before?" And you'll be haunted by that thought and feelings of your own shallowness over and over. I've seen the hard copy of "Crossing Boundaries" from the International Review of Poetry and Photography that's referenced on the Wikipedia site in issue. It's truly a first-class, powerful merger of words and images rarely seen. And I for one look forward to discovering more of Ana Elsner's work in the literary journals and in upcoming books authored by her, no matter the publisher. I can scarcely believe that you are seriously considering removing her biography from this online encyclopedia! - KAL

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.217.10 (talk)
Reply - Thank you "KAL" for your endorsement. Whoever you are, to me you represent all those viewers and searchers who visit the Ana Elsner biography page here on Wikipedia, and seem to get a lot out of it. Thanks again for 'speaking up'. Opinions such as yours are invaluable in confirming the validity and relevance of this article to the community of web-citizens at-large.
- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I want to invite you to join us here at Wikipedia by creating an account. Thanks again. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am the Wikipedia user who first started this page on July 2, 2007, based on information supplied directly by Ana Elsner herself, whom I had met personally at a literary event. If you check the page history you will see that I am also the sole contributor to this article as more data was becoming available from the poet or about the poet. -CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment You yourself exercised your right to install an AfD, prompting for deletion of this page, based on your personal POV. Now you are seeking arguments to prevent this page from being deleted. Make up your mind. Let us know what your true intentions and objectives are, other than seeking personal notoriety as evidenced by the 11 mostly petulant entries you made on this page so far. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In summary Whoever you are or think you are, you have made this matter your personal cause célèbre. This is highly inappropriate. I am done taking you for anyone other than a troublemaker. Let somebody else deal with you and your 'problems'. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I simply said it's not necessarily up to you to delete it. This whole 'the poet suddenly asked me to get rid of the article' seems very suspicious/convenient. I wholly support its deletion because the subject does not warrant inclusion. I have not been petulant, I have simply raised the point that Wikipedia isn't for articles about people who have no notability. As far as I'm aware an administrator needs to authorise deletion, and if you blank the article (like you tried to remove the AfD notice) it's likely to be reverted. --Peejles (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I defended the article's merit by citing that this biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography review and that it was categorized B-class, not a single person acknowledged this fact... Instead, the prevailing strategy was to bring all kinds of allegations, impugning my neutrality and conjuring up some ridiculous conspiracy theory regarding my user name, a website's header and a small poetry press. Are you hoping that if you sling enough mud, enough of it will stick? Never mind the fundamental Wikipedia principle of "assuming good faith"...
I ask the admins to examine what exactly has been put on public trial here, a user, a user's good name, a user's contribution, the Elsner biography or the very principles of Wikipedia? - Biographer of poet Ana Elsner, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you claiming that you have no conflict of interest, and that you are not affiliated n some way with Instaplanet? -- Whpq (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be put on the defensive based on some witch-hunt. Let me say this one time: I have never engaged in self-promotion on this site. I have not built in any commercial links or any other advertising into my contributions. I do not derive, nor aim to derive, any personal gain from posting on Wikipedia. I have endeavored to strictly adhere to NPOV in creating this biography and to keep it spotlessly clean and free of bias.
Whpq, Not only do you NOT afford me, your fellow Wikipedian, the courtesy of "assuming good faith", but your persistence in using COI allegations borders on harassment. I strongly advise you to cease and desist your accusatory conduct, a conduct that is sadly reminiscent of McCarthyism. You are wasting my time and yours. - A Wikipedian living in his own Cultural Universe, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal practice to declare "if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article" as per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. -- Whpq (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Case-in-point: Peejles post citing the so-called survey "Bay Poetics, ed. Stephenie (sic) Young, (Cambridge, MA, 2006)" to support the claim that Elsner is an "extremely marginal" poet. In doing so, Peejles' lost all credibility. In fact, and I have the book right in front of me, Bay Poetics is no survey at all. Not even its editor, Stephanie Young, would characterize her collection as a survey in light of this statement she made in the introduction: "I started with my friends, and then the writers important to my friends. I followed lines of personal relationship because I was curious what formal or tonal connections might emerge between those who share their affection." Bay Poetics, p. IX. The representation that Bay Poetics is a "survey" is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a complete misunderstanding of that publication.
Even if Bay Poetics is relied upon as a criterion in evaluating the standings of regional poets, then take note Wikipedia editors: Every, let me repeat, every San Francisco poet laureate as well as the Oakland poet who served as the official California poet laureate at the same time that editor Young compiled her Bay Poetics, all these distinguished poets must have been considered to be marginal because she omitted all of them. Hence, Elsner's omission from Bay Poetics puts her in the company of some of the most prominent poets.
If you take the time to investigate, you will see that Elsner's work has been published in anthologies and literary journals in Italy, Germany and Austria. Her sponsored appearances and international credits exceed those of the entire lot of poets (all 110) who appear in Bay Poetics.
Also completely dismissed from this discussion is the fact that two former San Francisco poets laureates and prominent Bay Area literary figures, Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Jack Hirschman, provided resounding endorsements of Elsner's work.
For what it's worth, I have personally attended a program, funded by The Friends of The San Francisco Public Library, where Elsner shared the podium with former San Francisco poet laureate devorah major. At another SFPL event her co-feature was the principal oboist of the San Francisco Opera orchestra. Researching primary sources at the San Francisco Public Library will quickly bring to light these repeated prestigous engagements.
In summary, Peejles charge that Elsner is a "marginal" artist remains unsubstantiated and demonstrates to me his complete lack of knowledge about the San Francisco literary scene.
As has been pointed out already, Elsner's bio apparently passed a review by the Wiki Project Biography team. To my knowledge her bio has appeared on Wikipedia for a considerable period of time now.
For these reasons among others, a basic standard of fairness requires, it seems to me, that her detractors satisfy a heavy burden of proof before this bio is removed. From what I can see on this page, no one has met that burden
Signed: KAL, a Member of the Public-at-large —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.217.10 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KAL, I am most gratified that there are people like you out there who have first-hand knowledge of Ana Elsner, her work and her track-record. Thank you for coming forward. --- Please don't think that your voice is of less importance in this matter than is that of an "Insider". - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect of WP:CREATIVE do you feel this person meets? Alternatively, what independent sources can be used to satisfy the general notability guideline? Rnb (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of 'Bay Poetics' was merely a quick example. I find 'KAL' and CulturalUniverse's remarks rather offensive in this discussion. To argue that Ana Elsner is an important well-published literary figure is, frankly, delusional. Surely anyone can see with a google search that there are no reliable independent sources available to establish any notability, and the ones CulturalUniverse provides are dubious to the point of being laughable? And besides, how do they possibly meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria? The unsigned remarks above seem to be asking me to source the poet's lack of notability! How ridiculous. This discussion is at a complete dead-end. Surely it should be up to CulturalUniverse to list the surveys that Ana Elsner is in, rather than me to list all the ones she isn't in, ie. all of them! Poets & Writers Directory relies on a points-based system, so anyone only needs a minimum of 6 poems on an edited website to be a member. It's nominal, and I would qualify. --Peejles (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ms. Elsner may indeed be a talented poet, but the credentials listed here are not even remotely sufficient to establish notability. Listing in Poets & Writers should in no way be considered evidence of notability....I too am listed, for the record, and I am not (yet!) a notable poet. I have always considered myself an inclusionist, but to include this article without further evidence of notability undermines the basics of WP:CREATIVE 7triton7 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discrediting the P&W inclusion is addressing one argument. It leaves standing substantive facts like
- Poet's book qualified to be included in the San Francisco Public Library catalog,and make no mistake about it: this is a milestone.
- Poet qualified to be included in The Other Voices International Project right alongside Billy Collins,
- This biography of a living poet has already passed the Wiki Project Biography team's review by the Arts and Entertainment Work Group., a fact that is conveniently overlooked by all detractors - CulturalUniverse, Wikipédien aux pieds nus 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a book in the library doesn't automatically mean the author meets the notability guidelines, nor does having it in included in a project. As far as the biography review, I believe that's more a review of the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject, and I'm still confused as to how the review missed the article having independent sources. The best way to show the subject is notable is to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cite them in the article. Are there reliable third party sources that show the notability of this subject? Or that show the subject meets WP:CREATIVE? Rnb (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a matter of fact, there are third party sources. Perhaps you are familiar with poet laureates Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Jack Hirschman. Both these venerable poets have reviewed and endorsed the work of poet Ana Elsner. "To create true poetry requires hunger and passion, and Ana Elsner has it, in spades." Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and "The rage comprised in the intellectual landscapes of Ana Elsner's lonely journey in poetic form disparages war and injustice with cries for the rebirth of human dignity and compassion." Jack Hirschman. - CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, where were these reviews published? Rnb (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were published in June of 2007. - Wikipédien aux pieds nus 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC), CulturalUniverse
Where were the reviews published? What journal or book, etc., were they published in? Rnb (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both reviews are on the back cover of Ciphers of Uncommon Origin, Volume I, along with another review by Terry Tarnoff, author of The Bone Man of Benares. From what I understand, review copies of the manuscript were sent to Hirschman, Ferlinghetti and Tarnoff. All three then mailed back their review text. These were put on the back cover verbatim. - Wikipédien aux pieds nus 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(indent) I don't think those can be used as sources as they're not independent of the subject because they appear on the subject's book. If there's another source for those, an independent review journal or website or scholarly journal, those could be cited as independent sources to establish notability. Rnb (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So these quotations are just solicited blurbs, and so cannot be taken as independent, especially since they appear on the book itself. (Although I obviously don't know in this case, blurb reviews are also commonly written for a fee.) And three quotations, even if they were in a review journal and so on, doesn't vaguely constitute the poet being "widely cited by their peers or successors". --Peejles (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another observation Ferlinghetti and Hirschman both come up with reliable third party google results / sources, so your point is completely void. They are notable, Elsner's not, and no amount of pontificating about generational nonsense is going to change that fact. And I don't think calling other users 'sad and pathetic' is going to help your argument; there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram! --Peejles (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Accipe hoc
The very same users have been engaging me over and over again, spending copious amounts of time on this issue. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of unlimited time at my disposal.
This discussion has grown above and beyond what is warranted here (right now it stands at 38 kilobytes).
I have endeavored to state my arguments in as comprehensive and clear a fashion as deemed appropriate. I rest my case.
The biographical article about the poet Ana Elsner has spawned a long and lively discussion, a fact, which in itself is noteworthy.
- CulturalUniverse Wikipédien aux pieds nus 23:15, 29 April 2009 (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.
More