Draft talk:Alessio Zanelli

reasons for rejections
Wikipedia is full of articles about authors whose references are pretty poor: I've come across several ones which, undeniably, are poorer than the one I submitted, without too much effort in finding such names. I can report examples if need be. Needless to say, deciding if an author is worth a Wikipedia article is a delicate matter, but it is subjective above all: there can be no comprehensive, absolute criteria. Just a tiny percentage of authors can have "top" credits, like Nobel Laureates, Poet Laureates, and winners of important prizes (e.g., the Pulitzer Prize). Over 90% of the authors covered by Wikipedia don't fall in such a league, nonetheless they have their article, because they are published authors, I mean, published in notable, respected journals, quite regularly, and have authored one or more "real" books. So, if an author has been widely published internationally and has authored several books with real publishers (not publishing services or subsidized publishers), for me they're worth a Wikipedia article (as what I said at the beginning proves). Moreover, publication in literary magazines is more relevant than books themselves, in most cases: there's no "cheating" about that! World Literature Today, for instance, won't publish any author whose work has little or no value, and that certainly is a renowned, independent source! I just included three remarkable publications: World Literature Today, Quadrant and Acumen, because I thought that three are enough (Wikipedia is not a list of publications, websites, etc.), being top literary journals in their respective countries (and covered by Wikipedia itself). By the way, Zanelli has been published also in three of the most renowned South African literary journals: New Contrast (South African Literary Journal), New Coin and Carapace, a few times in each of them. All the sources I cited, to be honest, are actually independent from the subject: the Library of Congress, for example, would never store and list self-published or subsidized books, and that's another authoritative source (the most authoritative library in the English language, I'd say). As to actual "references", i.e. coverage in a variety of secondary, independent sources, again that's not the case for most literary authors: you can find news about them and their work in literary magazines and on literary websites, but hardly in general media, unless they have won the National Poetry Competition, or the T.S. Eliot Prize, or have sold tens of thousands of books (which happens, maybe, to one out of a thousand published poets, including most of those covered by Wikipedia). So, really, I'd like to understand better what kind of references would actually "work", seeing that, for instance, the one by The Poetry Society (the most important literary organization in Britain, along with the Royal Society of Literature) is not considered one of those! Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that if the article had been created by a credited Wikipedia editor, it would have been OK, but it has been submitted by a simple poetry reader with very little expertise in the creation of articles on Wikipedia, trying to do it in the best and most accurate way regardless. Anyhow, as I said, I'd be most grateful if someone could further explain why the references I've found are not good, or not enough. Where has a literary author to have been published and covered if not in some of the most prestigious literary journals (like World Literature Today) or by the most important literary organizations (like The poetry Society of the United Kingdom)? Thanks to anybody who will take the trouble to reply. 82.48.49.63 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)