Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Ann Brown


 * 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. This is basically on the edge of no consensus/keep, given the weakness (but not absence) of sources, but this is not an impermissible outcome. bd2412 T 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Lee Ann Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

self promotion of individual with only trivial and arcane coverage, including reliance on facebook pages. Fails WP:Author. MarlonApricot (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating deletion discussion for Lee Ann Brown
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural speedy keep per CSK3. No evidence of WP:AUTOBIO here, as the article's creator appears to edit under her real name, Cassandra Gillig, and citing a Facebook page for one sentence is hardly "reliance on facebook pages". No prejudice against withdrawing or even changing to delete if someone else who has actually looked at the article wants to second the nomination: it wouldn't be the first time that an article on an American poet with some loose connection to Japan or his/her work was promoted by him/herself or his/her friends on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the nom is an SPA, which is sending up red flags for me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator's rationale. WP:PROMOTION. Subject lacks notability. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just ... wow. The above is an editor who has an overall 80% keep !voting record !voting "delete" in this case, after I had !voted keep (after a fashion), and also has a history of showing up and harassing me just for the hell of it. (Note also that despite some recent pretend indignation about me "outing him" by accidentally referring to him by his former username, the above is essentially speculating on the supposed real-world relationship between the author of this article and its subject.)
 * Does anyone want to make a good-faith second to this nomination so I can change my !vote like I said I would?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't believe the hype. The editor has harassment issues in spite of thinking like 5 people are harassing him. I had five delete !votes today, and two yesterday, and two the day before that. The record is in my contributions. Please carry on and realize that not everything is about Hijiri 88. closer: please do not diminish my !vote based upon the hysterics and disruption of Hijiri 88. Lightburst (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which means you have been deliberately manipulating your own AFD record by !voting delete in a few instances where the result was already likely to be delete, as well as ones where you saw me !vote keep. This started in the last few days: why has your rate of !voting delete jumped from like 8% to 40% out of the blue? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The women is all over the web, NY Times, American Academy of Poets. Poets, successful poets anyway, are generally at the peak of human creativity, and should be valued. Note to closing admin This is a entirely vexatious. The SPA editor came at at 00:39, 6 November 2019 and by 00:42, 6 November 2019 this was at Afd. unsigned comment by User:Scope creep
 * Your strong keep is based on a your suspicions that the nom is an SPA (which does not mean the nom is wrong). Additionally a claim of sources all over the web is not confirmed. Presenting those sources here would be helpful. My search found blogs. Additionally American Academy of Poets looks like a site where you pay to be listed. Starting at $500 I could be listed and I am not a poet. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me what I'm thinking, ever. You have no understanding of what constitutes an academy, what its purpose is and why it is indicator of notability. Stick to what you know. Poets are not like scientists, celebrities or politicians or celebrities i.e. those who have a ton of money and can have huge buildings, loads of symbolism and tradition, plenty of pomp, huge prizes and attendant stuff that comes with a ton of money. Poetry and poets tends to be low key affair.  scope_creep Talk  15:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I merely summarized your !vote rationale and asked for you to share the sources you found. I would be happy to reconsider my !vote if I could see that the person was notable. As another editor pointed out, I try to !vote keep when I see notability. You cited an organization that you claim confers notability (American Academy of Poets). It seems every group has a "pay to look credible" group like this: Lawyers especially. I will let others evaluate the subject and see if they can submit reliable sources. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank for that. Apologies accepted. I think your here for the long term and look forward to working with you. Its an Academy, a learned society. Poets are feted by the great and the good, if they are good but don't tend to have a lot of money as a group until that point, as poetry doesn't sell, like e.g. comics books, so they always have secondary jobs to keep the money coming in. The only reason I know about this is a I read about it. In that particular instance is was a Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom who up until he was appointed to the queen was farming cows to survive. I found out that is always like that. Poets in particular are always living in the equivalent to a garret. The only thing you can judge them on is the writing and what folk say about it.  scope_creep Talk  11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Primary writer of the article here... Yes I have bias but this article should exist. She has won a few major prizes and edited the first poetry press run by and for experimental women writers.  I know it's a niche but it's a significant niche to poets and this article serves to bolster the record of a history that is left out of a lot of canonical texts--women already write at the margins and women who can't go the route of conventional publication even moreso.  I'm not as well versed in the rules of wikipedia writing as y'all, so if the facebook link is too much, that part can be edited out.  Was just trying to flesh out the page.  Happy to work with whomever to get this into a more acceptable page, but I really think it'd be a shame if we took it down entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.135.148.190 (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that your account is a borderline WP:SPA. Almost as soon as you started your account you worked on Lee Ann Brown's Tender Buttons Press and another poet who was also self published by that same press. Since then you have done little else, before creating this article about Lee Ann Brown. It is perhaps odd that we have a SPA nominator and an SPA creator both involved with the same article. IMO the Tender Buttons Press is not notable. It is entirely self published. See below:
 * "Poet Lee Ann Brown began tiny nonprofit Tender Buttons in 1989 after meeting writers from New York who had run their own presses: "I didn't realize you could make your own books. I just asked everyone how to do it.” So the “Tender Buttons Press titles are "available for online purchase directly from the website.” And the web site uses a self publishing book publisher called Small Press Distribution.
 * In addition the Encyclopedia of the New York School Poets does not confer notability and also is a self published book. Copyright 2013 by Terrance Diggory.
 * The article appears to be anchored and referenced to the non-notable references and "pay to look credible" site, and self published non-rs refs which on first glance make the subject appear notable.
 * Regarding the NY Times.. two references appear: One New York times article is about a different poet. And the other is a WP:ROUTINE wedding announcement. The wedding announcement is really about Lee Ann Brown's husband Anthony S. Torn who is a big deal actor and director. But WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Lee Ann Brown in that reference. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cont. from writer of article I am reviewing the SPA guidelines which I was not familiar with until this point. I have worked with dozens of poetry presses including Tender Buttons on small things like book layout and assistance in getting their papers into archives, which is all unpaid volunteer work.  I edit under my real name for transparency and to be responsive in situations like this.  The majority of poetry presses on Wikipedia are similar to Tender Buttons and the majority of poets active in the late 20th & early 21th century have similar publication records.  These are not vanity presses they are often certified 401c nonprofits with limited staff.  As far as the SPA goes, I have not received payment from Tender Buttons to write this article nor have they paid me in the past.  Also, The Encyclopedia of the New York School of Poets is likely mentioned on at least a hundred poetry pages here on Wikipedia--it is a comprehensive resource with sources cited and is not a self-published book.  There's a huge difference between self-publishing and publishing with a small or independent literary press.  The latter are legitimate presses which regularly win prizes, have staff, and publish a wide variety of authors (by writers who are not the staff).  Brown, for example, was not published by Tender Buttons.  I would like to see a review of the information on this Wikipedia page to establish its accuracy since my authority here has been called into question because I have done volunteer work for this writer's small literary press.  I am seeing now also that this article has been expanded well beyond what I initially wrote--I am not the sole author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandragillig (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

*Keep The Boston Review seems like notable coverage. Publishers Weekly reviewed some of her works which makes them notable, and a writer is notable if their work is notable. Getting "Poet's Choice" in the Washington Post seems like it adds to her notability as well.  D r e a m Focus  01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Not sure now. Boston Reviews isn't looking so great as a reliable source.  D r e a m Focus  01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm nervous about !voting here since there already have been a fair few words spilled above, and I only stumbled upon this AfD because of a dispute between two users who are currently in conflict above. I want to make clear I am focusing just on the article here as I became curious as to whether she's notable. I want to stay as far away from the conflict as I possibly can and will be un-watching this page after my vote. Through a before search, I think she meets WP:AUTHOR - her poetry has been reviewed in some very notable publications, and while she only appears to be a professor or assistant professor at St. Johns, you could also argue WP:NPROF #1 is met, and the sources overall clearly meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject married Rip Torn's son so the wedding announcement is in NY Times. The poetry of the subject is a vanity project, as is her entirely self published pseudo publishing company Tender Button Press. Any awards received are not mainstream awards. There is very little editorial oversight on any publication by this subject or about this subject. Reviews I have found are blogs or sites like Boston Review that ask for donations. To pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOET we would need to see more. For instance which criteria does the author pass?
 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * 4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * The person does not meet any of the criteria. I checked...her works are all published by self publishing and or a small independent publishing company.
 * Additionally, the claim that the subject passes WP:NPROF is simply not supported by facts The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. We have no evidence of this. With that I leave the AfD after having put up walls of rationale and research. I of course yield to the consensus, but wanted everyone to see that a person can game the system, by paying to look like a successful poet. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just passes WP:SIGCOV. She's been reviewed or been a subject of interest numerous times in Publishers Weekly (see ; "Polyverse"; Rotella, Mark; Sep 28, 1998, Publishers Weekly, Vol.245(39), p.96 (offline); "The Sleep That Changed Everything. (Poetry).(Book Review)"; Scharf, Michael, Publishers Weekly, Feb 17, 2003, Vol.250(7), p.72 (offline); "Interior with Sudden Joy", Rotella, Mark, Apr 26, 1999, Publishers Weekly, p.76, 50; "An Anthology of New (American) Poets", Publishers Weekly, Nov 2, 1998, p.49. She's also authored several peer reviewed journal articles in The Literary Review, A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, Journal of Modern Literature, Southern Cultures, and Chicago Review. There's also The Washington Post piece already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2019 (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.