Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Reale


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Reale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable either as a poet or a librarian. No major reviews orprizes forthe poetry, two trivial books as a librarian  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, found the following reviews, of her poetry: jmww journal - "This is Not a Situation in Which You Should Remain Calm, After spending more time with the collection, I appreciate Reale's reasoning: the denseness speaks to the main character's stunted, resigned perspective. The poems look heavy because they are heavy.", Prick of the Spindle - "Natural Habitat by Michelle Reale (Scott Review), As an object, Natural Habitat is irresistible. .. Reale gives us emotional images, free of pretense and excuse.", and "Natural Habitat by Michelle Reale (McKnight Review), In Natural Habitat, Michelle Reale confronts the issue of “true home .. Reale’s stories are constructed with a directness that cuts to the emotional quick and reveals the often-guarded intricacies of domestic behavior and feeling.";
 * and of her book Becoming an Embedded Librarian: Making Connections in the Classroom (which with this many reviews, meets WP:NBOOK): College & Research Libraries - "However, if you are looking to clear the fog around this interesting and important concept in library services, Michelle Reale’s book is a coherent and well-organized discussion of the various aspects of embedded librarianship reinforced with details of her personal experiences as well as lists of practical strategies. .. This volume will make a handy addition to any instruction librarian’s bookshelf", American Libraries Direct - "Aiding Student Research, Reale reports her stumbles, failures, and successes, and confirms that building relationships with students through the classroom yields better researchers than “one-shot” instruction.", AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library Staff Publications reviews it, Endnotes: The Journal of the New Members Round Table (an ALA journal) - "Reale draws upon her experiences to challenge librarians to reinvent their practice and shed the auxiliary relationship to faculty. .. Whether you are new to the practice and concepts or possess experience as an embedded librarian, Becoming an Embedded Librarian offers value to all librarians with a passion for moving themselves out of the library.", Library Journal - "The author makes a strong case that successful embedding can further demonstrate the value of the library profession to faculty and students. VERDICT A concise and lucid treatment of the topic. Highly recommended for instruction librarians working at academic libraries and teaching faculty who have librarians embedded in their courses.", and School Library Connection - "This is a professional level book geared to the librarian embedded in a research classroom. .. I see aspects of this as an activity being very successful in a high school setting as well as at the college level.", Reflective Teaching - "It would be easy to become intimidated while reading Michelle Reale’s book. It isn’t just her wealth of practical knowledge and hard won experience that may intimidate the reader, it is the daunting nature of embedded librarianship (EL) itself. .. There was one small negative. It is not evident from the cover that the book discusses only in-class embedding. .. But considering the value of the rest of the work these are minor concerns.", Canadian Library Association Digest - " Here, Reale shares her own university classroom experiences to offer a step-by-step primer for those contemplating the practice. .. Readers will feel confident applying the lessons learned from Reale's first-hand account to their own experiences both in and out of the classroom", so this looks like a keep but would like some other editors to weigh in on the useability or other wise of the above reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Pushcart prize nominations and the rather extensive list of reviews are adequate to meet GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per available reviews. Notability is borderline, but I believe the threshold has been met. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Nice sourcing by . Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, weak keep, one librarian is good enough for me, although i would appreciate , as another librarian, commenting on the library publications' reviews that i provided above. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never or almost never in my  life seen an unfavorable book review from   them. I've written  many book reviews for library journals. The convention is to say something nice, or if the review has to have negative elements, make sure there are are quotable portions also that sound enthusiastic. Of the 4 review sources mention, only the LJ review could even attempt to be taken seriously. An article here accumulating quoted excerpts fro a wider range of sources good and bas is a trick used to promote a book, and whenever I see it in WP, I thing "overkill" to disguise the fact that not one of it is important.   DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks, i have turned my above keep into a weak keep due to concerns with the reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. She has published a number of print books, of which the "embedded librarian" book shows close to 400 holdings (WorldCat), but all her poetry books show only either a single or 2 holdings. Reviews are blogs, for example from the Times of Sicily source: "Times of Sicily, a blog committed to providing coverage of Sicilian news and topics spanning..." According to convention, these aspects fall short of demonstrating notability in the humanities. I will also remind panelists here that we have never counted being nominated for an award toward notability, so Pushcart is irrelevant. Taken with the fact that almost the whole article is OR and was SPA-created (suggesting fanpage or autobio), there is unlikely to be any other acceptable sourcing that would conclusively indicate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Hi ,"we have never counted being nominated for an award toward notability" - WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is one of those situations that requires reasonable interpretation. When I say "we have never counted", what I mean is that, in practicality, this simply doesn't come up, at least not in my long-standing experience at AfD. Why? First, for awards for which nomination is itself an actual symbol of achievement, even if one doesn't win (think of the Oscar, for example, in that the nomination lists are widely covered/documented prior to the award announcement), that person is always notable on lots of other accounts, so this is never even given as a reason. Indeed, such cases rarely, if ever come up here at AfD. Conversely, this case is the flip-side of the coin. With the Pushcart Prize, publishers are allowed to submit (nominate) groups of their own authors. The obvious incentive for presses to maximize their own chances means there is no notability associated with being nominated, irrespective of whether one considers Pushcarts to be both well-known and significant. Nominees are not covered, nor are the lists even public knowledge, AFAIK (so that would seem to be obvious OR in the article). So, yes, the reasonable interpretation is Pushcart nomination is irrelevant here. I agree with DGG that most of those reviews are likewise irrelevant. I think your "weak keep" is pretty charitable, given the at-best-shaky-sources on this one. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (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.