Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.J. Odasso


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A.J. Odasso

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article consists of terrible sources and a massive number of links promoting the subject's work. The argument from the IP submitting the article is that in the niche genre in which this person is active, these sources are considered reliable. I am not convinced. Certainly we should not be using Amazon sales pages as sources. The principal claim to notability is nomination for an award where we don't even have articles for quite a few of the winners. In the end I suspect this is either an autobiography or a PR bio. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - seems interesting, but I can't find any third party RSes or plausible claim to notability. WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While winning awards is a sign of notability, although I am not sure that these awards are quite at that level, being nominated for an award very rarely is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article should not be deleted.
 * As a rotating editor at Strange Horizons, it is feasible and likely that one would research the available editors to choose which one would be the best choice.
 * Additionally, Adrienne is an extremely well-published author who has contributed to the genre in which she works. She has also spoken and paneled at many conferences.
 * The Wikipedia article nicely presents a condensed portrait of the author while collecting links to some of her work in one place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.203.17 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This article should not be deleted.
 * Subject has a good range of publication credits, responsibilities and notability within the field of speculativhe pe poetry. The present citations are poorly formatted and recommend revising them to bring them up to wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaoArtisans (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This article should not be deleted.
 * Echoing sentiments from the above no-deletion votes, adding the point that there do not appear to be Amazon links anywhere in the article anymore, if those are considered a major source of contention. This writer is a notable player within the sf/spec/f community both as editor and poet.  Wikipedia has consistent issues with understanding how poetry world vs. fiction world dynamics work.
 * There's a recent interview in Wellesley Underground I ran across today. I'm hesitant to add it if online-only publications are persistently seen as invalid, however.  Maybe this will be of use to other page editors.  (Decided to add to entry page.  The information can't hurt.) 64.106.54.186 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The problem is that Wikipedia has pretty strong standards on inclusion, which basically require high-quality third-party sources to base an article on a living person on. And there appear to be zero such on Odasso, and I looked. She's someone I'd personally love to have a Wikipedia article on, but there's literally nothing to base one on and no sign she passes the notability standards to risk having an article on a living person. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it'll take evidence - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WorldCat shows only somewhat over 100 library libraries and then the listed sources here are simply trivial and unconvincing, not what would be significant and substantial for a convincing article, therefore there's nothing to suggest accepting. SwisterTwister   talk  23:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WorldCat showing that only "somewhat over 100 library libraries [sic]" have a copy of a book is not a good indication of the worth of said book. I frequently find that fewer than 100 libraries worldwide have copies of some works considered important in the areas that I collect in for my large R1 institution. Granted I do not collect in areas of poetry or speculative fiction, but unless you are yourself, SwisterTwister, a bibliographer for poetry and fiction in a library, I don't consider your "evidence" very convincing. Jane Yolen's book of poetry Bloody Tide (2014) is only owned by 46 libraries worldwide. That does not prove its worth or lack thereof. Angengea (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a good sign for notability, however. (And Yolen doesn't have an article on the back of Bloody Tide.) The relevant guideline is Notability (people), particularly the subsection about authors. For individual works, it's Notability (books) - WorldCat wouldn't swing it either way, but it is indicative - out there in the wider world, nobody's much noticed Odasso or her work, either in the mainstream or even in the field - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My point, perhaps somewhat clumsily made, is that inclusion or lack of inclusion in library collections as reflected in WorldCat cannot and should not be used as evidence for deletion of an article due to the fact that even modern mainstream authors who have collections of poetry will find those collections under-represented in library collections due to the fact that poetry is not usually as actively collected as fiction, especially not niche genre poetry. SwisterTwister's comment should not be considered as evidence. If you want to have a discussion on the fallibility of WorldCat or the bias against modern niche poets in library collections, feel free to reach out, but my point is that WorldCat is NOT indicative of lack of notice. I consider her being nominated for several awards in her area to mean she has been noticed by her field, and a better indicator than WorldCat. Angengea (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept the point that many commenters make, that some fields are not well documented, including not being well documented by notable sources. This is the case for multiple fields and it reflects forms of WP:BIAS. I encourage editors to change that situation by documenting the field as best as possible with the available notable sources. Examples could include improving the articles on Strange Horizons and Speculative poetry. It may also be that there are helpful print sources, not available online. Doing so might have a consequential effect on this BLP. Trankuility (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 - bring the sources! It's a real problem that Wikipedia's sourcing policies tend to reify existing systemic biases ... but we have the sourcing policies for good and battle-tested reasons, many of which reduce to "spammers mean we can't have nice things" - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This puzzles me immensely, why would this have been moved out here if it had already been shot down by respected editor on TOOSOON grounds. This seems very odd. I'll meet the keeps half way here and suggest that this be moved back to the article draft space until it actually meets the criteria need to stay here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you have a moment, would be grateful to hear your thinking--I'm sure you have better context for the awards and publications here than I do. (And if you don't have a moment, no problem!) Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: & possibly userify. There are in practice two usual criteria for poetry: major prizes, and inclusion in standard anthologies. I would accept the prizes here as significant if she had actually won any of them--but she has not-- rather "repeatedly nominated", "nominated", and "finalist," For almost every award, this is nowhere near as significant as actually winning an award. Worldcat lists items by her in two very specialized anthologies, neither of which can possibly be called "standard" since they are in almost no libraries.  As for library holdings, I consider it good sign, butt hey have to be field-adjusted. for publishers of this sort of poetry , 100 libraries would be pretty good. Poetry by better known authors is sometime in  40 or 50 only for each book.  But unfortunately that's not what i see in WorldCat. For the only 2 books of her poetry in Worldcat,  the first of them is in  just 2 libraries, the other in just 6.  What there are substantial holdings of is her edition of Edgar Alan Poe's stories and poems, which don't count as her original work. She may be notable in the future, but there's no point in putting it into draft space until she's only 6 months away from being notable . It can be but into the editor's user space indefinitely.  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to restarting if new coverage of Odasso appears. I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea that we should expand our view of which secondary sources can be a legitimate contribution, but it's a moot point when there's so little secondary commentary even to consider. And absent that, we might take prizes or anthologies as a different source of independent comment on a subject, but sounds like we haven't got enough there either. This is not to say what's been written here isn't useful, only that it belongs in a different venue, as Wikipedia is meant to describe existing reliable, independent accounts of a subject, rather than do primary research and evaluation to produce a new account of the subject. (As a side note, it's an ongoing concern of mine what a poor job we do communicating this to the readership and new editors, but that too probably belongs in a different venue!) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.