Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Conneally (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Ged UK  14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Conneally
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally deleted at the first Afd, but more sources were brought up at this DRV that should be further considered here. I am personally neutral on this nomination. Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep (I think) The original entry did not shoe hardly any of the stuff that's come up in the deletion review log - with a thorough update and restyling it should stay as he probably meets notability on a number of fronts - I've just added some of the stuff coming up from the deletion review with some stuff culled from the web. The stuff I've put in so far is a bit 'untidy' 'unwiki-style' so perhaps someone could take a look at it. There are references and links to put in (including some from the deletion review log)but I haven't had time to add them yet. I removed the Exeter College bit but perhaps I shouldn't have as he maybe went there as well as Brookes Oxford - there are references to him as being part of Oxford band Wow Federation that were based at Exeter College but would someone go to Exeter College and Oxford Brookes? I'm new to editing stuff so feel free to change anything I did wrong. BruceR1 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

'Strong Keep' Now the article has been substantially updated (and seems to be being edited ongoing) with many references added establishing notabilty on more than one front it's gone from a delete based on the original entry to a definite keep. Good work by those editors who have revised the entry so far. Could do with a style tidy at some point? Hollowinsideandout (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Edging towards keep but not there yet. I proposed the original AfD on the basis of lack of notability, not lack of info or references. It would help persuade me (and I believe other editors) if those who advocate a keep specified where in this raft of new info and refs the notability lies, with reference specifically to WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. --Yumegusa (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What significance (if any) should be read into the fact the only two keep editors so far registered only after this 2nd AfD for Paul Conneally was listed?--Yumegusa (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Contemporary Haibun Online website, Conneally's six-line definition of haibun is included among four others, all of them considerably longer. Conneally is described only as Haibun editor at WHR - no notability there. The Haibun Today blog merely repeats the text of Conneally's CHO definition. Blogs are hardly the place to be looking for notability. You're going to have to do better than this.--Yumegusa (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In terms of WP:CREATIVEcriteria the development of thought / theory around haibun particularly in the referenced good secondary source of the paper on Developing Schools of Haibun published by British Haiku Society notability is met and reinforced by the references to his definition of haibun in Contemporary Haibun Online. Also here http://haibuntoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/haibun-defined-anthology-of-haibun.html BruceR1 (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edging away. This doesn't stand up. Edgecombe's article in Blithe Spirit mentions Conneally just once, and merely says that Conneally and Edgecombe both refer to a pre-existing writing style by the same name. The author makes no claim that Conneally developed "thought / theory around haibun", and refers only to private correspondence with him - not even a publication - no notability there.

comment A photograph of some of the work he created around Hawkesley (incorporating poems people and children wrote locally under his direction into the landscape) will be added soon, so I hope you consider the article once it's benefited from it.:) Sticky Parkin 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sticky, please explain how addition of such a photo makes the subject more notable. I'm disappointed that the response to this 2nd AfD has been to throw huge swathes of text at the article, without any attempt to focus on notability per se. The fact that such text can be supported by citations (though some have been found wanting in that respect see Talk:Paul Conneally) does not in itself confer notability. I've done my best to help in tidying the recent updates, paring, trimming and formatting, but I find myself floating in a sea of repetitive trivia. I'm not saying there's no notability in there, but if there is, it's so diluted and camouflaged by the banal and unremarkable, that it's lost. "Never mind the quality, feel the width" doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if an AfD is borderline, (which this may have been prior to the blockings) sometimes it just makes an article look that bit more presentable.:) I've not added any text recently as far as I know, my only major contrbution to the article was to the previous version during the previous AfD, when I added some refs from WP:RS (which might have been removed in the current version as not all the content of the articles linked to was accessible, but it was the best I could do in the way of finding reliable sources.)  The current article is made by newer users who wouldn't know how to make an article exactly as we would wish, but AfD is not for cleanup, if we don't like the style or content of the article, we can always fix it.  All that's important at AfD is whether he meets WP:NOTE.  I've not cast a !vote in either of the AfDs, just commented, because I've met the bloke so it would be inappropriate slightly for me to vote either way. Sticky Parkin 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked account comment - Further to my comment above re "the only two keep editors so far registered only after this 2nd AfD for Paul Conneally was listed" (this was before Sticky Parkin's post and does not refer to her), I note that Hollowinsideandout (talk) has been banned blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. --Yumegusa (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked, not banned. Is User:BruceR1 definitely the same bloke?  That account isn't blocked. Sticky Parkin 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that. If you've no reason to suspect it, may I suggest you edit it out of your comment, out of courtesy to the editor.--Yumegusa (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I were saying. Kindly don't 'have a go' at whatever I say:):):)  I meant that as he isn't blocked, his vote shouldn't be discounted. Sticky <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't having a go, Sticky, I just thought about how Bruce might feel after your comment, that's all. Plain text is dodgy, as we all know. --Yumegusa (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Yumegusa is probably right about the style and perhaps there is too much content now. The banality is probably my poor edits and writing but I think that there is enough to conclude that the subject has notabilty especially in this, at the moment, somewhat small field of haiku in English and art forms built out of that and renga. The Japanese are generally and rightly, quite proud and protective of their culture and I think that the fact that the Japanese Embassy funds some of his work (referenced in the article) and that he has run workshops directly for them infers / confers notability especially as he isn't Japanese. So (taking into account Yumegusa's concerns) the article is a bit long winded in places but there is notabilty and I still think keep and someone strip it down a bit. Perhaps keep and review in a certain length of time? Sticky - the photo that someone has put up (wass it you?)is good. Where exactly is that and what work does it come from? Is it from 100 Verses work? BruceR1 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - We're over the hump here, thanks to a lot of hard work by BruceR1. There's still a few citations wanting, but even if we delete the relevant text, we still have a notable subject. The description of that image, btw, is "Haiku by Paul Conneally on North Worcestershire footpath" --Yumegusa (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like the article now. I think it reads very well, like a proper article, but didn't trust my own judgment. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The article reads better than many here people have no issues with. As Yumegusa says, we're over the hump. This AFD should be closed now. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (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.