Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenia Leigh


 * 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 Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows. Consensus is that the book is notable, but the author not.  Sandstein  18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Eugenia Leigh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no evidence that this person has coverage in reliable sources, by way of reviews or otherwise. Most of the sources in the article are either unreliable, questionably reliable or primary and not coverage. (a lot of blogs.) Fails GNG. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment see wp:NAUTHOR - 2 reviews here ; . Marthadandridge (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - I have listed some of her honors and distinctions in the article, and have documented two (favourable, as it happens) reviews of her work, there are more out there so her book is the notable topic . I see no evidence that nom has paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, or has understood that notability is measured by reality out there in the world, not by what is or is not already in the article. The sources that are there, by the way, include some blogs by staff of poetry magazines and other reliable institutions; these are perfectly satisfactory sources. This fine poet is well known in American poetry circles and has written and appeared in more than enough places to pass the GNG quite easily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well known in a circle doesn't make someone notable. I disagree about the blogs, particularly in the absence of coverage in other reliable sources. Someone's blogspot is totally meaningless, as is a website review that accepts submissions specifically from the writers. Please indicate which of the awards and honors are notable because a list of awards that aren't notable is meaningless. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, winning prizes and being made editor of different magazines indicates prominence in her field, just as those things would in a scientist or engineer or lawyer. Scientific notability, for instance, derives entirely from being cited by other scientists, i.e. exactly "in a circle", that is precisely how notability works in a profession; the same goes for notability in law, or medicine, so it isn't something special to poetry. Personal blogs would not be reliable sources, but that is just a smokescreen here: WP:RS is quite clear that institutional ones can be relied upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please provide actual RS that support this because right now the sources breakdown like this:
 * a basic profile on a website
 * a profile from the publishing company
 * a profile with a poem substantially the same as all the others
 * a listing of her poems on a website where anyone can submit something
 * a profile and a poem on a website where anyone can submit
 * just her name and her poem
 * another website that accepts submissions from anyone
 * a staff listing
 * a blog piece from some random blogger, not rs
 * a rumpus piece which I question the validity of but will accept as the sole piece of actually decent coverage
 * a hyper local magazine that is the equivalent of a blog
 * a blog and an interview
 * an event listing
 * a good reads award list for a non-notable award on an unreliable website.
 * So what of these is the hard and fast proof of notability as covered in reliable sources? I'll take your comparison to other professions and say that if this were an engineer, we'd require them to be widely cited or otherwise covered in verifiable sources which are also reliable. A bunch of bloggers writing about them wouldn't cut it. This is, at best an overly fluffed vanity piece. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would normally hesitate to respond to anyone arguing in that tone, and would ask that language like "a bunch of bloggers" be withdrawn as discourteous and inappropriate at AfD. As for "overfluffed vanity piece", that cannot be so as I'm not the poet and it doesn't look as if the article's creator is either: she started the article as part of the Women in Red initiative.
 * However, since the use that I and the article's creator have made of these sources is modest and straightforward, I will make an exception, assuming good faith and in the hope that we may resolve this matter rationally.
 * 1 Connotation Press: supporting the fact she is a poet.
 * 2 Four Way Books, publisher, supporting the fact of her graduation.
 * 3 Drunken Boat, a long-established electronic journal, supporting the bare fact that she has published there.
 * 4 Pank magazine, similarly.
 * 5 Rattle magazine, similarly.
 * 6 North American Review, similarly.
 * 7 Solstice, similarly.
 * 8 Hyphen magazine, to verify the claim that she is an editor there, contributing to notability.
 * 9 A well-known poet, cited as a person with authority within his field. This is a legitimate usage of a personal blog. The ref is relied upon to support the claim that she edited Kartika Review, surely not a fact anyone would doubt, and one that contributes to notability.
 * 10 A "piece of actually decent coverage" - glad we agree, but if you accept Rumpus you should accept Portage and other poetry magazines. The Rumpus review certainly supports notability.
 * 11 Portage, a respected modern poetry magazine. The review by Steve Schauz is quoted to describe Leigh's work.
 * 12 Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle Board of Directors, is cited to support the claims that Leigh has received awards and fellowships from the named sources.
 * 13 The event notice from a famous institution, the Smithsonian's Asian Pacific American Center, is cited as above to establish that Leigh has received multiple awards and fellowships. This does not seem to be in doubt, and contributes to notability.
 * 14 A news report from a sober and quiet books website, GoodReads, of a respected poetry award. The claim does not seem to be in any doubt, and it contributes to notability.
 * I've added another review, in the unchallengeably authoritative American Book Review. I think we have "multiple reliable sources" here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows and repurpose. The book has been reviewed numerous times, including in reliable sources such as American Book Review. The author has received little to no coverage in reliable sources beyond reviews of that one book whose reception already forms about 80% of the article's content. The book seems notable enough; the author doesn't. Huon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would work fine, the small amount of author bio then serving as brief context for the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I hate to be the dissenting opinion again, but I'm not sure that I agree that the single review in that source qualifies the work or the author as being notable. And to address Chiswick's edit, again, Goodreads is not a reliable source for the same reason imdb and Wikipedia are not: it can be edited by anyone and your claim that there isn't any doubt is incorrect but it's also not a notable award. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm "Chiswick Chap", thanks. Methinks thou dost protest too much. There are multiple reliable sources for the book. The statement that Leigh won the prize is multiply sourced also, so we needn't rely on GoodReads' word for it, though they are certainly correct on this simple matter of fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was more who cares if she won a prize? I won my 5th grade spelling bee and several others after that as well as several photography prizes throughout high school and college. They all have names and there are published articles about them. None of them are notable. That was my point. And there are tons of sources, sure, but none which are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also kind of ironic you chide me for "protesting too much" all the while accusing me of basically being uncivil for calling a blogger a blogger. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You definitely had no business messing with my username, for which you have not so far apologized. The prizes and magazines are exactly the ones that are significant in American poetry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can clarify, how did I "mess with your username"? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, you divided it innocently. FYI, it's indivisible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and salvage content for Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: it seems that is !voting for MOVE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment (totally offtopic), i dont mind being referred to as "coola":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability for authors is not about what they write but what others write about them. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Blogs about the author really don't count, awards which aren't of themselves notable also don't count. Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We've more or less agreed it's a book article (to be renamed), and review blogs by poetry magazines and other poets certainly contribute to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs by individual poets most certainly do not contribute to notability, please see WP:RELIABLE. A review by an established magazine would, but its blog is questionable. Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * umm, not quite correct, having a look at WP:UGC under "Exceptions", we see "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", so if the poet is mega notable their blog would probably be ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The blog of the "mega poet" is cited as a source simply to "support the claim that she edited Kartika Review." -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * agree, btw i wasnt saying any of the cited blogs are by a "mega poet". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The quality of sourcing doesn't look much convincing and this needs more eyes.....
 * Rename as Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows (remove the redirect), that is notable (ie. multiple reviews), and rewrite accordingly. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of substantial evidence of independent notability. I find time for blogs but I have not time for blogs. [Blogs are] largely not acceptable [as sources], the book says. Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  "Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows."  - when The Gnome regrets reading through the AfD.
 * Unsigned comment by Nosebagbear.


 * Rename (that you call merge) to Sparrows is clearly the sensible option. The only personal blog, and one that the article barely relies on, is from the Ottawa poet Michael Dennis, described by Open Book Ontario as "during the 1980s, easily the most published poet in Ottawa, with poems in several hundred magazines and journals." We are quite entitled to use authoritative opinion such as of well-known poets to comment on other poets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - The article has scant information about the author, but rather seems to be constructed as a book. Go with that, and add a banner for WP:BOOKS — Maile  (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 14 June 2018 (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.