User talk:Ryanmurph123

AfC notification: Draft:Rachel Levitsky has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rachel Levitsky. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rachel Levitsky has been accepted
 Rachel Levitsky, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nomination of Rachel Levitsky for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Levitsky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rachel Levitsky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Levitsky for deletion
In the matter of whether Rachel Levitsky should be deleted: Bearcat claims that the sources credibly reference the poet in third person once as a blurb, but there are several sources in the list that discuss and credibly verify the notability of this poet using third person speech. There are journals, interviews, and pages on pervious teaching positions that reference the poet in third person, do not address the poet directly, and clearly show that she is A. notable B. of enough merit to be incorporated as a poet on Wikipedia's pages for reference and research of those in need and C. capable of being verified by the sources listed in the article. I don't see how clear sources to reference in third person could be identified as "advertorially toned." Take a look at other poet pages on Wikipedia, like [| Susan Bee], [| Leslie Scalapino], [| Charles Bernstein], etc., and you will see that similar references and sources are necessary and perhaps the only way to show the credibility of poets. It is a community founded on primary outreach and one-on-one connection, which comes across in the Wikipedia pages of other poets that have been added to Wikipedia with success. I would urge others to take a look at Rachel Levitsky and see as to whether or not it contains enough secondary/tertiary sources. I believe it does. Ryanmurph123 (Ryanmurph123 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC))
 * A source is not automatically a valid one just because it's written in the third person and not the first — as important as that is, it's not the only characteristic that a source has to meet. A source also has to be fully independent of her (namely, you cannot "source" her notability to her own writing, or to her own "our members" profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with); it has to be substantively about her; and it has to be in a reliable source. It has to meet all four of those conditions together, not just one of them, to count as a notability-assisting source.
 * There are 35 footnotes in the article; literally the only one of the entire bunch that actually meets all four of the condidtions required is #7 (the book review in Publishers Weekly) — and one source isn't enough.
 * Please also familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — the fact that other poets may have badly written or badly sourced articles does not mean this one has to be kept too; it may mean those articles have to be deleted and just hadn't been noticed by a responsible editor yet. But at any rate, all three of those articles actually contain at least some sourcing stronger than anything you've shown here — so no, none of them are equivalent to this at all. There is no such thing as "needing to rely on weak sources to show the notability of a poet" — notability on Wikipedia is a measure of the quality of the article's sources, so by definition if you can't show quality sources to support a poet's notability then she doesn't have any notability to show, because the quality of the sources is what determines whether there is notability or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Levitsky has been edited in accordance with Wikipedia regulations regarding reliable sources and credibility. I'm hoping that it is no longer deemed an article nominated for deletion. Ryanmurph123 (Ryanmurph123 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC))