Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Turner (poet)


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Turner (poet)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage substantially about him by multiple independent reliable sources, at least on which to base an encyclopedic biography. Here's the best I could find — far from multiple. And the coverage of the subject, as opposed to the interview portion, is still full of quotes by Turner. The subject also fails WP:CREATIVE (no indication of any significant impact in any field — upon research, few if any reliable reviews indicating anything about his work), and his career does not begin approach WP:ACADEMIC qualifications. Regarding WP:ANYBIO, the awards he has won seem to be reported only by the awarding group and Turner himself (if not significant enough for third party mention, then a prize probably isn't actually very significant); his supposed nominations for a Nobel prize have also yet to be shown in reliable third party sources (it's either Turner or an associated party). In full disclosure, this is one version that certain editors seem to prefer: lots of spammy external links, cites to Amazon, cites to press pages by the university with which he is affiliated, and wholly unsupported prose that could be politely described as promotional. As of nomination, the last WP:BLP- and WP:RS-compliant version is current. JFHJr (㊟) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The bit about the Nobel nominations is meaningless and could be cut with no loss to the article, but Turner is most certainly a notable poet/author.  In addition to the cited article from The Humanist, here are, for example, a substantial (albeit paywalled) article in the Dallas Morning News, a lengthy article in Reason, a review in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, some praise in an article by Kim Stanley Robinson. His sci-fi epic poems get multiple mentions as landmarks.  There's more, although searching is complicated because his name is shared by others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For clarification: based on his bio and GoodReads, he's not the same Frederick Turner (aka Frederick W Turner) as the Guggenheim- and NEA-winning author of novels 1929 and Redemption. And nor is he Frederick Jackson Turner author of the classic The Frontier in American History. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can some expert on the American university system and WP:ACADEMIC explain if being a "Founders Professor" satisfies "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or 'Distinguished Professor' appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Our article says distinguished professors can hold quite a variety of titles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Per WP:PROF -- to answer Colapeninsula's question: the Founder's Professor chair is one of the top positions at U-Texas Dallas, with only a small handful of faculty receiving them . I'll cut the bit about nominated for a Nobel since it's unverifiable at present  -- maybe put it in the talk page to check again in 30-50 years? :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "Founders Chair" sounds roughly equivalent to an endowed chair or distinguished professorship, so he passes WP:ACADEMIC. Actually the article's out-of-date bio link did not confirm that he has that title, but I have now provided a current link that does verify it. I would like to see someone convert those other external links into cited references, and to extract some of the information from them and put it in the article. However, don't bother (don't EVER bother) mentioning "nominated for a Nobel". That means absolutely nothing; all kinds of kooks and cranks get "nominated" by their friends. Only the actual award is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2012 (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.