Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Woodward (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Woodward
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first AfD was a wash (violation of topic ban) but that doesn't mean the article should stay. argued at the AfD that being a judge for the British Haiku Society was a reason to call him notable; I disagree (it's a small club). He also suggested that this proves the person's importance in the Haiku scene, but I don't see it. Now, the review he founded is a zine with zero notability, receiving no coverage besides on the website of the associated MET Press (Modern English Tanka). MET Press also published Woodward's book--through Lulu.com. (And this is not a relevant review or award.) In other words, doesn't pass the GNG, doesn't pass the AUTHOR or PROF guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As I noted on User:Semimaru kajin, the article was more of an experiment than anything else. We'll see if the Wikipedia community consider the article worthy of keeping. I have no intention of arguing for or against it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I read this about the "British Haiku Society" According to Anthony Thwaite, writing in "The Penguin book of Japanese verse", 'The interest in haiku that had previously been smouldering flared into life in 1990 with the foundationof the British Haiku Society' So despite the 125 pound reward of the prize for which Woodward was the judge, I hold the opinion that the judgeship gives Woodward notability. I would like reactions to this clarification before voting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing you to WP:NOTINHERITED would seem like a good response if you said "Anthony Thwaite once co-authored a book with Woodward", but "Anthony Thwaite once wrote a book that briefly mentioned a society that once let Woodward be one of the judges in their competition" is a couple of steps behind even that... (Also, Woodward can't inherit his notability from an organization that itself doesn't even have a stand-alone article.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that society was notable, and/or if Woodward's involvement with it had been properly covered, in-depth, then maybe. As it is, we have a passing mention of the society and his judgeship--there is no way in which that put together makes him pass the GNG guidelines, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very marginal notability by Wikipedia standards (WP:AUTHOR) and the article may have been created in violation of WP:POINT. I did find one interview with Woodward in Simply Haiku (which is probably a somewhat independent and mildly academic, but very niche venue) and another  presumably appeared in Haibun Today, but that latter one is in a publication founded and edited by Woodward. Additionally, Patricia Prime who interviewed Woodward in Simply Haiku is also listed as a reviews editor for Haibun Today, so it's hard to say there's much independence there as required by WP:GNG. Finally, The Monserat Review, which gave an award to one of Woodward's books, appears more independent, but is still a pretty obscure venue (albeit with some Goggle Books hits.) I suppose the fact that Grace Cavalieri is the editor granting those awards in the The Monserat Review adds a bit more credibility, but it still seems a marginal award, especially because there are seven books in that "Best Books for Winter Reading, 2008" list in the anthologies section alone. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks. When you know the reason I created the page was not POINT but that I legitimately wanted to see if the article could survive, it's a personal attack to pretend that I was violating POINT. Please, please, PLEASE grow the fuck up and leave me alone. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - there were questions at the original (related) AFD as to whether Woodward was a reliable source because of the insular/circular nature of publishing in this particular niche genre (as Drmies has articulated). I don't think those concerns have been sufficiently allayed to now think many of those same sources are independent enough to be considered acceptable for conferring notability. Stalwart 111  11:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I actually remembered the original AfD when I created the article, of course, particularly where you (I think it was you) pointed out that some of the sources being cited by TN might be independent/reliable sources for the book/author, even if not the concept. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not going to trawl back and look but I'm pretty sure you're right and I'm pretty sure that part was before the subsequent part when we realised exactly how closely related most of those sources really were. No harm in testing the theory, I suppose, but I don't think there's enough to sustain the article. Cheers, Stalwart 111  12:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I just realized that, unless I cast a clear "delete" !vote, my above response to SNUHRN might theoretically be taken as a "keep". I am of course not in favour of keeping this or any other article that confers some kind of "notability" on online poets/quack-scholars. I was actually just avoiding !voting so as to keep my original experiment viable, but that's no longer necessary. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (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.