Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Seaton


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Seaton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only evident claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award which is not unequivocally notable enough to make its winners notable just for the fact of winning it. The only references present here at all, further, are primary sources and a Q&A interview on a blog, which are not sources that can assist notability -- there's no evidence being shown at all that she's been the subject of media coverage in reliable sources. (Even the award win is referenced to the award's own primary source website about itself -- but for an award to be considered notable enough to hand its winners an AUTHOR pass, that award has to be one for which media pay attention to the award as news, not one whose own self-published website represents the only verification.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this -- but a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and nothing here properly demonstrates that Seaton clears our notability standard for writers. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She has coverage from Huffington Post and the New York Times. I don't she how she would not meet WP: CREATIVE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: she has also been reviewed in http://www.lambdaliterary.org, in http://www.3ammagazine.com/ and in https://nightowl.owu.edu/ - and discussed in monographs. For a poet, she's a bloody rock star. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. It can be used as a convenience link if and when it's aggregating wire service content from, say, Reuters or the Associated Press — but not if it's the originator of the content. And the only evidence I'm seeing of New York Times coverage in a Google search is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a "today's events" calendar — I'm seeing zero evidence that she's been the subject of any substantive coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statement about the Huffington Post is not supported by consensus, man. Original Huffington Post content is perfectly good for generating Notability; what people have questioned is possible bias in some of its articles (particularly opinion pieces), which has nothing to do with WP:N. The New York Times piece may be an event announcement, but the Miami Times and Miami Herald coverage is more substantive. For a poet, this definitely meets WP:N.Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Original content on The Huffington Post is not reportage, but blogging whose reliability or unreliability is not measurable by any normal journalistic standards. It's acceptable to use HuffPo when the content in question is an aggregation of work originating from another source, such as wire service articles from the AP — because the citation in that instance is to the AP, and HuffPo is just a convenience link to a copy of it — but not when the content is originating from a HuffPo blogger. And no, I'm not wrong about this; it's been discussed extensively in the past at the reliable sources noticeboard. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's funny that you say that, because I was just looking at the noticeboard, and the summary I gave above reflects the discussion I read much more accurately than your comment of Huffington Post as an aggregator. Once again, we are talking about notability here, not accuracy of content.
 * Her work has been reviewed in http://www.lambdaliterary.org, in http://www.3ammagazine.com/ and in https://nightowl.owu.edu/ and in monographs - and her poems have appeared in many, many major literary periodicals and magazines. Can't you admit that you were wrong, just this one time? :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete One event. As for the Huffington post, it should be noted that wikipedia is not news. Longevitydude (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but a full write-up in Huffington Post is evidence of WP:N, which is what is in question.Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's your opinion about the not news argument. The fact is either way this is still one event. Longevitydude (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I won't cast a !vote, at least for now, but it does seem that she may be yet another example an accomplished individual who happens to fall short of our benchmarks for notability, at least at this time. (And the same may be the case for her often-writing partner, Duhamel, based on what I see there). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How can three reviews in WP:RS fall short of the third bullet in WP:CREATIVE? Just asking. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. Would you be able to post links to the actual reviews? I do see that 3:AM Magazine seems to be a notable and reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * https://nightowl.owu.edu/2016/review-of-caprice-by-denise-duhamel-and-maureen-seaton
 * https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/multiple-selves-painfully-split
 * http://www.lambdaliterary.org/reviews/11/05/caprice-collected-uncollected-and-new-collaborations-by-denise-duhamel-and-maureen-seaton/ Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't open the last one for some reason but what you've posted along with the short Tampa Bay Times interview may nudge it past GNG. Though I have to say I discounted that first odd Night Owl ref that seems especially bloggish and user-generated. Weak keep per GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The two added Pushcart Prizes on top of the coverage push me to strike the 'weak' part. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad; lambdaliterary.org doesn't support https. Fixed above. I was counting nightowl as peer review. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources given are trivial in the extreme. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
 * In what world are Lambda Literary review and 3am Magazine trivial sources for poetry reviews? Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tiny cites on GS make WP:Prof unlikely. Sources are generally of too dubious nature for WP:Author. Early career. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Multiple reviews of her work in peer-reviewed journals should do it, though. See discussion above.Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Compared to the impact made by Emily Dickinson or Marianne Moore it's not much. Wikipedia bios are for people with a solid record of achievement that has made them notable, not beginners, however promising. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
 * that's an inappropriate standard in the other direction. The criterion for coverage in WP is notable, not famous. And WP PROF is irrelevant. She's a professor of poetry, not of  the academic study of literature.  Her notability has to be judged a a poet. This is an excellent case of where one should not use Google Scholar.  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have gone through more responses on this discussion and I still think this is a severe case of one event. Yes, that is talking about her merit as a poet. Longevitydude (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pushcart Prize is a very important award,and sufficient for notability . So us having 4 books of poetry published by  university presses--this is very rare--most poets are published only by specialist publishers.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability for poets is often problematic — one can be highly regarded in the poetry community, have multiple published books, etc., and still not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. But in this case, I think the double Pushcart and heavy coverage of her in the small presses (where the poetry coverage usually is to be found) makes the case clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I assume that "professors of poetry" are quite rare, plus the awards, the coverage & multiple published works. On the balance of things, it's a keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2017 (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.