Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Olson (poet and writer)


 * 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  21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John Olson (poet and writer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I entered "John Olson" into Google numerous times, each time coupled with one of his works as mentioned onto the page. Most of them received hits only in the 20s range, and one or two had sixties at most. From what I can gather, the only real claim of notability that he won an annual "Genius award" from "The Stranger", an alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There are some secondary references to the author on google, although many of the ghits do not refer to the same person. As the recipient of the award, he is considered slightly more notable. However, the notability of the award itself is questionable. Conversely, Amazon proves he's well published. Billscottbob (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the innovative poetry community, I can attest that John Olson is a widely respected and influential author. He represents an American strain of surrealist and Dada writing and has been published by prominent presses and in countless literary magazines. His book of selected poems, BACKSCATTER, was published by Black Widow Press. Check out the web site of Black Widow and you'll see their list of authors is world class. And I don't know how CyberGhostface performed his Google search, but when I searched John Olson's name coupled with BACKSCATTER I got 194 hits on this new title. It would do a great disservice to Wikipedia's mission of representing a broad spectrum of cultural activity, as opposed to corporate-sponsored trivia, to delete John Olson's entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaz Mees (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're about 100 hits off. If you had clicked on the later numbers, you would have seen the number of hits decrease dramatically. And I don't see how being published by "Black Widow" makes you automatically notable, either, as it appears to be a rather small indie publisher.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- creator of article here, to kindly suggest considering the following, from the May 2008 on-line calendar of Open Books: A Poem Emporium (a venerable poetry bookstore): "Olson was an early winner of The Stranger's Genius Grant and is well-known in Seattle's, and the nation's, experimental writing communities." http://www.openpoetrybooks.com/calendar/archives/000322.html The Open Book people know what's up with poetry: it's their specialty. Thanks. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep — It has minimal secondary sources establishing notability. Cleanup and better referencing would be necessary to make sure we're not here again in the future. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reviews linked in the article, which look reliable.  A notable small-press writer. JulesH (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2008 (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.