Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Slease


 * 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. Fails WP:ARTIST quite clearly (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Slease

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Serious notabillity concerns here, I am failing to see how this biography passes WP:ARTIST. The article is well structured, with numerous references, but the reliability of those is of concern to me. Some are clearly unreliable (blogs, youtube, self-published). Others look to me like third party, but low visibility. Sources which may be reliable include interview at 3ammagazine, bio at parasol-unit.org, and book review at handandstar.co.uk. Feel free to double check if I haven't missed anything else, and I am open to being shown that there are some reliable references here, in which case I'll be happy to withdraw this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As currently written, article fails WP:ARTIST. The reviews are from sources with a connection to the subject (printed or solicited by the presses that published his books), or an online website of uncertain reliability and provenance. Googling in Gscholar and Gnews failed to find further significant coverage, so fails the standard WP:BIO. Ray  Talk 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

KEEP: Links to a few of the videos on youtube may be considered reliable. "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed." For example, a recent edition to the external links is a video from a reading as part of the Bristol Poetry Festival at Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol. The organisation is Camarade. Camarade is supported by the Jerwood Charitable Foundation and Arts Council England (link here: http://www.arnolfini.org.uk/whatson/maintenant-camarade). Of course we need to look a little closer before blindly dismissing youtube content as outright unreliable. This same kind of wholesale dismissal is often levelled at wikipedia. In terms of notability, I can see some of your points in terms of significant coverage. However, in terms of precedent, there are quite a few poet stubs that have significantly less coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rohrer and full articles of poets that have perhaps similar coverage. For example this article of an American poet also has two reviews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Dickman

I do agree that two reviews meet reliability criteria from Hand+Star and the interview in 3AM Magazine. Would it be a good idea to delete the other critical responses because they may have been solicited by the publisher of the poet/author?

However, the coverage of this article does extend to reliable festivals and quite prestigious art galleries. This kind of coverage, while not a traditional book review, is significant in demonstrating that the writer has some importance in terms of both poetry and art.

Again, see other articles on contemporary poets for comparisons in terms of significant coverage. Some may have more of course, but quite a few have a lot less significant coverage.

One solution could to make this article a stub? I would propose either keeping the article with the rationale that it on par in terms of a majority of other articles on contemporary poets or changing it to a stub. It would be a shame to delete the article completely as it seems like it could be a useful source of information on contemporary poetry in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewa rasala (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that existence of other articles sharing similar problems is not a grounds for keeping this one; rather - it is grounds for considering the deletion of those others: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:30, 1 May 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.