Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Smith (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Sr13 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Smith (poet)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable young selfpublished poet. Only references are to blogs. NawlinWiki 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Heh, I just clicked the "afd" button and it said that there was already one up. 765 Google hits, no references. One peer review isn't enough for inclusion imo.  Sala Skan  14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources. --Eyrian 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, has been reviewed by a significant publication. --Eyrian 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sourced. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that blogs are not reliable sources. My statement stands. --Eyrian 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is to the press packet for the book, this is not a blog. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an independent source. Sources need to be independent of their subject to count for notability. --Eyrian 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're shifting the goalposts. You wanted a reliable source -- we use information from a publisher all the time. Now you want a notable source; I have provided numerous testimonies from notable members of the poetry community about Smith's work. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me; I'm not trying to shift the goalposts, I just don't want to dump all the Wikipedia notability requirements in one AfD. Please read WP:NOTE, it tells the whole story. What is needed is a reliable, independent source. Blogs may be independent, but are rarely reliable. Cover matter is reliable (and can be used as a source for several things), but is not independent. What is needed is a review (or some other substantial coverage, I just suspect this is most likely) in a reliable publication, independent of the author/publisher of the work. --Eyrian 15:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK -- here is a review by Joelle McSweeney . Is this sufficient? Formulafiftypoet 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Marginally. I am leery about the importance of Joelle McSweeney, or Fence Magazine, but it will suffice. --Eyrian 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. Friday (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sourced. Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If her work has legitimately been reviewed by significant reviewers, this counts for something. No vote on this anymore- she may well be notable, I don't know.  Friday (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Smith is a significant presence in the poetry scene. Four Square, her magazine, publishes many notable poets ; her book Organic Furniture Cellar has received great reviews from important poets including Ron Silliman, Lisa Jarnot, Charles Bernstein, Juliana Spahr, ... the list goes on and on . I would like to assume good faith on the part of NawlinWiki, but she has already speedy deleted the first version of the article entirely out of process (claiming, incidentally, that I am Jessica Smith, which is not true). Formulafiftypoet 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google brings up a number of entries for Jessica Smith (poet), but whether they are this particular person or not, I don't know. But WP:BIO states that creative professionals must be regarded as an important figure in their trade, created a new theory/concept/technique or written a well-known work, non of which can be attached to this person (yet). There is also POV in the article, but this isn't an issue really. I still think it should go for now though, because of the reasons I've given.  Lra drama 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is not sufficient reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability here.  Fails WP:BIO as stated above. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources would be sufficient for you to reverse your vote? Formulafiftypoet 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the amount of sources that make it suitable for deletion. See my point above as to why I think it should go. Look at the Jarno Trulli article. He is a famous F1 driver, but the article is in poor state with just one reference (which I added). That stays because he is a noteable person.  Lra drama 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have only provided vague opinions; you have not responded to the actual article, which cites a number of important poets on Smith's notability. Your response is "I googled her but didn't even check to see if the results actually referred to her, then I decided that she is not sufficiently important." Formulafiftypoet 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the number but the quality. A single good source is infinitely more useful than a dozen poor ones.  Blogs and the like are generally unacceptable because they lack any kind of independent, editorial oversight.  That you can quote a couple of other poets' blogs does not demonstrate notability.  However, if you were to find a review of her work from a professional, reliable source - or even better, coverage in mainstream media - that would do a lot more to establish that Ms. Smith really is notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the review from Fence Magazine mentioned above qualifies. --Eyrian 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note the disclaimer on the site that specifically states that the content does not reflect the views of the editors of the magazine. It is not an endorsed or reviewed critique. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that fairly standard fare for critical writing? --Eyrian 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, although I am unaware of any official standard on which to go by. In any case, the fact that the information comes from a source that is "brought to you" by Fence magazine and is not found either on the magazine's website or printed in the magazine itself (as far as I can tell) does not instill a lot of confidence in me as to whether this is qualifies as a reliable source.  Just my take on it, of course.  ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe that the praise is independent of the work. It sounds like it came from the back cover of the book. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided independent reviews of Smith. See, e.g., . Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arkyan. Slartibartfast1992 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided independent reviews of Smith. See, e.g., . Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No thank you, I will not change my vote to Keep because I hardly believe that a Keep is adequate. Slartibartfast1992 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * weak delete - I see people reviewing her work, but I don't see precisely where they're saying she's notable - i.e., that she's a young poet who is notable for her contribution to American poetry, or who is notable because critics agree she will be important. Also, have you found any scholarly study of her in print media? - a "notable poet", to me, doesn't just write self-published poetry - she not only gets published by respectable press, she also gets written about by scholars. Feel free to reply that I'm stretching "notability criteria" beyond what you see in WP:BIO - but I think what should be paid attention to is WP:N, which states: Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes provided in the article -- for example, Ron Silliman's -- make explicit claims about her notabiliity (Silliman claims, for example, that it "may be the most important book of the year".) As for "scholars" writing about Smith, well Joelle McSweeney, the author of a review of Smith, is a professor at the University of Notre Dame . Please change your vote. Formulafiftypoet 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One - this is not a vote, it is a discussion. Two, stop badgering everyone by telling them to change their "vote".  Make your case, and if people agree with it they will agree with you, but it's presumptuous to instruct people to change what they have said. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your remarks make it clear that you have little idea of how to judge the notability of a poet. You should not be participating in this discussion. Formulafiftypoet 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's little more than an ad-hominem attack that has little to do with what he said. Please read WP:CIVIL. Morgan Wick 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - I will not be changing my vote, as your rude behaviour towards people who disagree with you, and your subsequent WP:POINT AfD nominations, have proven you're simply trying to be disruptive. I don't even think you'll be posting to this particular discussion, soon. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You should vote according to the merits of the article, not based on whether or not you like the person who wrote it; doing otherwise is itself WP:POINT. Formulafiftypoet 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a vote, that was a comment. Your response is a non-sequitur. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom has it right, this pretty much falls over on WP:BIO. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This is the first time that I have ever invoked WP:IGNORE. The fact that she's self-published made me initially skeptical, but I have picked through each of the 90 unique google hits for this individual and I'm inclined to agree that she is notable. I don't feel that she fulfills WP:BIO as Dennis had noted above, however considering the medium, I would be willing to give her a certain amount of leniency there. Poetry is not something that gets a great deal of popular media attention, and therefore it's going to take a great deal more for a poet to be declared notable than it would someone new to the film industry. I relented and gave a keep !vote in that case, and I do in this one too. I don't see any harm in leaving this article where it is. Trusilver 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous delete arguments. She just doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Wildthing61476 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a hard one. On one hand, there are a lot of signifcant poets who wouldn't make it past Wikipedia's standards for inclusion -- either those codified, or the informal, unpublished biasses that emerge from time to time. Poetry is an advocation, it brings one less respect than being an editor to Wikipedia, & almost every poet -- good or bad -- self-publishes. Those who get published by established houses either have done so thru extraordinary effort or sucking up to the right people. Lastly, from the first external link to the biography, I think there might be some grounds to argue that Jessica Smith is one of the better poets at this time.
 * However, there are some items here that not only balance these positives but tip the scale against. First, the article defines Smith as "a significant young visual poet", with the last 2 words as a red link; remove the two adjectives, & we are left with the statement that she is a "visual poet" -- a school of aesthetics apparently similar to language poets or Imagists -- but of which she is the sole member. And I can't help avoiding the sense that all of this is expressed in terms of possibilities. Her CV consists only of undergraduate training & some graduate training. I know many artists with MFAs or MAs who would fail inclusion, & Smith isn't even as far along her career path as they. The external link I mentioned above discusses her abilities in terms of potential. Just how many 20-something poets were able to change the world? Yes, there was Arthur Rimbaud & Keats but they were ignored during their lifetimes, & their critical value assessed after their deaths. Shakespeare didn't write his first important play (Taming of the Shrew) until his thirties, & his best work came much later. In short, while this poet may one day be significant & maybe we'll all be kicking our selves five years down the road for deleting this article, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A person's significance is based on what they have done so far, not what they might do. -- llywrch 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I dont see any "significant coverage" from independent sources here.  The reviews are from iffy sources too Corpx 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment to facilitate discussion, I edited the article to make the sources more visible. Whether what one poet says of another in his blog would seem to depend on the notability and authority of the guy writing the blog. DGG (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have achieved some degree of notability, as indicated by the independent coverage linked from the article. JulesH 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are independent sources. I fail to see why poets have to be world famous like Rimbaud or dead to be included. Nick mallory 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not talking that all poets had to be "world famous" -- only those under the age of 25. -- llywrch 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that, sorry. Why should poets under 25 be excluded?  A lot of poets, like Dylan Thomas, do their best work when aged under 25.  Where does this arbitary cut off point come from?  Does it apply to anyone else, any other writers or just poets?  Nick mallory 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dylan Thomas lived past his 25th birthday. His ability as a poet is graded on the work that he created over many more years. -- llywrch 06:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am Jessica Smith; I did not write this article, but I am happy that it exists. The article needs to be expanded; there are plenty of reviews of the book.  NawlinWiki perhaps doesn't know the terrain of contemporary American poetry, or he would know, for instance, that Ron Silliman's blog is a major source for reviews of avant-garde works.  Similarly, some of you might brush up on your knowledge of visual poetry, which has a long history (you may have heard of the calligram). I am not under 25, but it is true that many major poets have been under 30 when they produce their most important works.  There is a long history of self-publishing (or publishing through a "patron," which is basically the same thing) so I don't think that the book's origins should discount it.  Although I am not "world-famous" by any stretch of the imagination, my poetry and poetics have been published in Norway, Britain, Canada, Sweden, and Turkey, and will soon be published in Switzerland.  The foreword to Organic Furniture Cellar was published in the peer-reviewed journal Literature Compass. In the foreword I establish a new poetics of plasticity. (You can buy the book at Amazon if you want to know more about it.) Perhaps the most instructive reason to keep the article is that hundreds of people a day search for "Jessica Smith poet," arriving at my rather popular blog and website, sometimes arriving at them from Wikipedia.  Evidently, people want to know who I am, and want an objective critical source like Wikipedia to provide that information. Poetry cellar 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) — Poetry cellar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Her work has been reviewed and published by reliable independent sources recognized by the poetry community. notellbooks Notellbooks 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it is increasingly looking like reliable sources exist and that other poets deem her notable. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, defintely keep. Her work is recognized in the experimental poetry community as well as in her many ambitious efforts as a publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusieli (talk • contribs) — Dusieli (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep Work is notable, regardless of publication route. I see no problem with the independent sources cited, and Wikipedia/ns need to understand that a mere 0.01 per cent of poets are going to get any mainstream coverage. Comment I find it funny that someone presumed she was under 25 and used that presumption negatively when Jimmy Wales himself states: ''To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters.' Kevin Doran 21:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Self published work is not reliable as a means to establish notability unless thhe publisher also has released work of others deemed noteworthy. None of the references are particularly good, although I admit she turns up several search results on Google. The problem here stems not from her likely notability, but from the inability to produce solid sources to make that notability clear. I do sympathize with the creator of the article, but as of now Jessica Smith seems to be somewhat of an underground sensation. Usually the best of poets suffer similar fates. (Mind meal 22:54, 25 July 2007 (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.