Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

John Smelcer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Orphan article that fails Notability (people) and Notability (academics). Prior versions of this page (see article history) made claim to an extraordinary list of awards and accomplishments, and association with famous celebrities, but they were dependent on primary sources -- John Smelcer's own web site, and lacked third party support. After removing the weakly sourced or unsourced material, the bulk of the remaining article focused on controversies surrounding John Smelcer, which were not particularity infamous in the grand scheme of things, and did not have a wide range of independent sources to allow a balanced view. The result has been a significant amount of debate at BLP noticeboard and Talk:John Smelcer, far out of proportion with the notability of the controversies. John Smelcer himself has also requested deleting the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the subjects request - remove the criticism and what have you got left.. undue critical weight in a low notability persons biography. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per non-notable, second Off2riorob's comments.Jarhed (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Honestly, I never like deleting articles when the subjects request deletions. However, it's not clear to me Smelcer is notable, so I'll go with the flow.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. I'm also in the side if a person with a weak claim of notability requests the deletion of their article, it should be deleted. Secret account 01:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject request for article deletion withstanding, the only notable aspect of this bio is the controversy surrounding his employment. I feel this falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF, and as such the article should be deleted. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. He's not a low notability person, he's the author of 40 books, articles in 400 magazines and journals, winner of a prize for the Best First Novel in America, as well as four others for poetry. His books get reviewed by one Nobel laureate, and he collaborates with another, among other famous authors. And all of this has nothing to do with any teaching controversy, they're just his own credits. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO it says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." The criteria are "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The Best First Novel is not an Edgar Best First Novel, it's the "James Jones Prize" Best First Novel, which isn't terribly notable (which is why James Jones Prize is a redlink). If you tried to write an article about it, you'd find five news articles, total, that even mention the name, from 1927 to present. No hits at Google books or scholar. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because that's just the short name. The full name is the James Jones Literary Society First Novel Fellowship. Here it is, all over Google Books. and News --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would avoid any notability argument that requires a link to a self-published website.Jarhed (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the award list on the society page. . --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of all 18 years worth of James Jones Literary Society Fellowship winners: 2010 Gina Ventre, 2009 Tena Russ, 2008 Margarite Landry, 2007 Robin Oliveira, 2006 Herta Feely, 2005 Anne Campisi, 2004 John Smelcer, 2003 Laine Cunningham, 2002 Linda Busby Parker, 2001 Ray Cristina, 2000 Steven Phillip Policoff, 1999 Louise Wareham, 1998 Judith Barnes, 1997 Leslie Schwartz, 1996 Greg Hrbek, 1995 Rick Bass and Tanuja Desai Hidier, 1994 Mary Kay Zuravleff, 1993 Nancy Flynn. What does this tell us? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That we've got more articles to write. :-) Seriously. This is an "we don't have all the articles in the world yet" argument. We're not done. Here's Greg Hrbek's book reviewed by the New York Times.. Here are two reviews of Robin Oliveira's book, New York Public Library and Seattle Times.  I think we can get good articles on most of them. --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty slim pickings for book reviews you've got there. One paragraph in the NYT looks like the high water mark. You're basically telling me that the majority of major book critics have nothing to say about most of these Fellowship winners. It reminds me of the point in Run-of-the-mill that we should not create articles for every "restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers". Creating pages out of those redlinks would likely lead to deletion for lack of notability; I'd not spend time on it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the high water mark, that's a minute's search. I'm just telling you that there are plenty, I just didn't spend more than a minute. Here are more for Hrbek: New York Journal of Books, Publisher's Weekly (and guess what, PW mentions Hrbek's James Jones award prominently)  Atlanta Journal and Constitution  (and guess what, James Jones prize prominently mentioned) Rocky Mountain News  (and guess what, James Jones prize prominently mentioned), Indianapolis Star . Hrbek looks pretty good for an article. Same for Oliveira, here are half a dozen news articles:  But we're not talking about Hrbek or Oliveira, are we? We're talking about Smelcer. Or at worst about the James Jones award. Which, if your point was that it must go to nobodies, because we already have all the articles about everyone notable ... seems to be wrong. --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

was one of the major issues with the article, undue weight to the reporting of the 1994 resignation at the uni of Anchorage. I left the basic details of the issue. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, more or less per GRuban. Subject fairly clearly meets the notability guidelines as a writer. The James Jones Prize (more precisely, the James Jones Creative Writing Fellowship) appears to be significant/notable; it carries a substantial prize (now $10,000), is awarded under the auspices of a legitimate university, was originally suggested by Kurt Vonnegut, and is discussed at some length in Jones's daughter's Harper Collins-published memoir. While the subject has requested deletion, his notability is not at all "ambiguous", putting his request for removal outside the relevant guideline. Moreover, he is a relentlessly self-promoting figure not trying to protect his privact, but to manipulate his public image, and Wikipedia should not be enlisted to assist that campaign, whether by action or inaction. The "controversy" may be described in the article at excessive length, but received significant news coverage, including a brief note in USA Today, and was presumably covered in various academic publications from that time not readily available online. In such circumstances, "Page deletion is normally a last resort", and there's no reason to conclude that whatever problems exist can't be resolved by ordinary editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "there's no reason to conclude that whatever problems exist can't be resolved by ordinary editing" - indeed, sir. Perhaps you'd like to practice what you preach? --82.41.20.82 (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was an improvement.Jarhed (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per GRuban. Setting self-published material aside, there are still reliable sources . Few quotes: "John Smelcer's poems bring one a strong sense of his ancestry" (American Indian culture and research journal), "featured a section of poetry written and translated from the Native American Ahtna by John Smelcer accompanied by an eye-opening essay entitled" (The American Directory of Writer's Guidelines), "In an interview with Dale Seeds, published in a special edition of MELUS on Native American Literature, John Smelcer remarks on the endurance of indian stereotypes" (From misrepresentation to misapprehension). Three examples, and there are more. He seems notable per coverage given. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Prokonsul Piotrus. I'm still not sure there's consensus ... time to re-list? Bearian (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to add that as this deletion discussion has progressed, some of the only verifiable material about Smelcer has been slowly whittled down to nothing. I have now restored most of it. The claim that the controversial material is getting undue weight is primarily a side effect of the larger fact that there is next to nothing verifiable about Smelcer except the Anchorage Daily News articles about his resignation and other legal troubles. Yes, a quick Google search seems to turn up a lot of hits that mention his name. But look closely. If you stop and read this stuff, you'll find that it's mostly passing mention, and mostly the result of Smelcer's own mastery of self promotion. He really knows how to get his press releases out there. But actual independent, reliable coverage? Show me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the bloat about the minor controversy that Bratland is insisting on keeping in the article, it imo turns the article into an attack page. - if he is going pot insist on keeping it then I support as per the subjects request - Delete - Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This argument is extremely disingenuous. It looks like an attack page because of the lack of good material that isn't embarrassing to Smelcer. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a burden to go and get this supposed independent, verifiable sources material that meets WP:RS, and put it in the article. Cite what he is notable for and put it in there. That's where your balance comes from. But if you can't do it, then -- here's where we are in agreement -- delete this thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that someone has an agenda here. The entire UAA controversy was re inserted. I deleted it. This article is being used by someone with a vendetta—. I think it needs to be removed. R.Ant6071
 * Delete. This article is an unmitigated disaster. There is clear meatpuppetry occurring, and it's over nobody important. There are certainly mentions but in my opinion it doesn't clear WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Further, it's despicable how some of the drama is either coming from Smelcer himself or people close to him. It's worth nuking and paving for WP:CIVIL and sockpuppetry issues alone. tedder (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't understand how this can be anything other than keep. There are numerous reliable sources to the Anchorage Daily News, clearly a reliable newspaper. He one two literary prizes that, though not terribly important, are at least university-level important.  Finally, he holds a named chair, which is criteria 5 on the professor test. Now, I don't actually agree with that professor test, but I've been told before that it's practically non-negotiable--that the simple fact that one is a named chair indicates that one's university finds one to be notable, and that named chairs are generally recognized across academia as a mark of notability.  So we have the person meeting several points in WP:PROF, and meeting WP:GNG.  What is the deletion rationale?   Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confusing a fellow with a chair. He has a fellowship, a type of graduate scholarship aimed at funding education for Native Americans, with optional teaching duties, not a named chair and he is not a professor. Smelcer meets zero criteria of WP:PROF. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying--yes, I did mistake the scholarship for a chair; I've struck that portion of my earlier statement, and concur that he doesn't meet WP:PROF. How does he not meet GNG with the coverage in the Anchorage Daily News?  (I do think that the forgery stuff should be taken out, because my general opinion is that BLPs should not contain info about crimes or alleged crimes that the legal system itself does not think exist; i.e., those that are expunged, set aside, or cases where no charges are filed; this, however, is an editing issue, and the information that would remain after such a removal seems like it would still be sufficient to establish notability). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've kind of stayed out of this discussion (except a tepid comment at the beginning), even though I was fairly involved in the article (Dennis was an enormous help), but I don't quite get what his notability is. Is he a notable professor? Is he a notable author? Is he notable because of the Native American University of Alaska incident? I don't see how he can can be notable for the incident. Therefore, he has to either be notable as a profess or as an author. It appears there is some agreement that he is not notable as a professor, so that leaves author unless he gets a little credit for the professor. As an author, there's very little secondary coverage - the only thing I see is the Milt Kessler prize, and isn't that restricted to just one university? I don't see how he satisfies WP:AUTHOR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or he just has to be notable as someone discussed in detail in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Which he was, until Off2riorob removed them again under what I consider to be quite specious meaning.  I usually side with Off2riorob on BLP matters, but I don't see how this is trivial or overblown or whatever--it appears to be a serious issue that was discussed in several different articles.  Maybe people outside of Alaska didn't care, but it matters when a college professor may have been misleading in an application process (please understand that I am not saying that Smelcer did, merely that the University said the did and the newspaper reported on it).  Yes, if those references are removed, the article should be deleted.  However, I think those references should stay, and have reverted the removal.  If someone (not a sockpuppet), ideally Off2riorob would justify on the talk page why the information is undue or trivial, then perhaps I and others could be persuaded to keep them out. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded regarding your addition on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unwilling to accept such a broad application of WP:GNG. Someone is notable because of something he is or has done. Just because he receives coverage for scattered stuff but without any real focus on who he is isn't enough. Moreover, even GNG just establishes only a presumption of notability. "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And what he did was make some claims regarding his tribal affiliation that ended up causing a scandal at a university. Now, if people want to argue this should be deleted under WP:BLP1E, I could possibly accept that, always keeping the possibility that circumstances may change in the future (i.e., that the subject has to accept that if xe does become notable in the future for anything--poetry, scholarship, etc.--that the article will be recreated and it will likely include the UAA info).  I'm mainly just so puzzled because everyone seems to be arguing that the person is obviously non-notable, when the person clearly meets GNG, which means that we need to make a more sophisticated argument for deletion.  I think it's far more borderline than that, though I can accept if we decide he falls on the side of non-notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As my original brief !vote implied, I think he's borderline, too. I'm just poking holes in some of your analysis. I think the UAA info should remain, but I don't think it establishes notability - it's just something that is newsworthy if the subject is otherwise notable. I'm just having trouble deciding whether he's a notable author or a notable academic, and at this point I'm neutral but leaning toward non-notability because I don't see enough in either sphere.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not appear to meet notability threshold. Neutralitytalk 20:42, 14 October 2011 (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.