Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Pretty


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ron Pretty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Ron Pretty has been a leading figure in the Australian poetry scene for decades". Sadly, the article doesn't support this claim with any sources, and I see nothing on Google Books, nor any significant, mainstream, independent works discussing him on the web. "he published 230 books of poetry" - impressive, but they seem to have generated next to no feedback I see. The claim to notability rests on "He won the New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards and an AM for services to Australian literature." per Notability_(people): "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention." - but is any of those really significant? This is a regional award whose article relies soley on self-published sources, putting its very notability in doubt. As such, while I'd love to see this rescued, currently I am not seeing how it can - but perhaps someone else can find better sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the case of Ron Pretty, hopefully the Membership of the Order of Australia for services to literature should be regarded as a sufficient independent source of significance. The AM is "the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens." see http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/member_order_australia.cfm#significance
 * While poetry in Australia is indeed not "mainstream" - it is a miniscule market from an economic perspective - there is much of significance which occurs in Australia that is not. It is precisely these kinds of achievements that honour systems such as the Order of Australia are set up to recognise. To suggest Ron is not significant enough for Wikipedia is to suggest that Australian poetry itself, and also the formal national apparatus by which significance in australian literature is recognised and honoured has no significance. To call it a "regional award whose article relies soley (sic) on self-published sources" is quite inaccurate. An eminent 19-member Council for the Order of Australia considers the nominations. The Council makes its recommendations, independent of government, direct to the Governor-General. It is "regional" only in that it represents an Australian National honour, not an international one. It smacks somewhat of cultural imperialism to suggest that the notability conferred by Australian Literature's pre-eminent honour is "in doubt". I would suggest that statement would need to be supported by some reference to some notion of the inferiority of Australian culture generally if it were to be accepted. — --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that the 230 books Ron Pretty published generated "no feedback" also requires verification. There may be a misunderstanding here.  In the original context the statement is "During the twenty year period he ran Five Islands Press he published 230 books of poetry", ie: Ron as founder and director of the [Five Islands Press] was the publisher not the author of the 230 books.  To maintain that the books generated almost no feedback, one would have to look at the critical reputation of, and commentary about a generation of Australian poets who had works published by the press. This search for the press on wikipedia gives some idea of the number of poets and award winning works published by the Five Islands Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Five+Islands+Press&button=&title=Special%3ASearch  The statement is either a misunderstanding or simply incorrect. The feedback on the books has been substantial in terms of sales, impact on the Australian literature scene and awards given to the works. --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, thanks for the clarification, and yes, I misread the 230 books part. Still, the article could greatly benefit from showing that this person has been discussed by Australian mainstream media. See also general guideline on Notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regrettably Ron was most influential before the internet was widespread, and despite his impact there is not much mainstream media coverage available on the internet. I have reworded so that statements are better supported and included more references including his most recent book on Google and some of the more significant reviews.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: his full bibliography is now in the article, and a reference to a mainstream press review of his recent work.--Paulknight34b (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also that the new years honours, such as the Order of Australia are usually announced in the mainstream press, so his name and citation would be there, but links do not appear to be available online. The lack of links should not preclude notability however... the guidelines do recognise that people can be notable without it being mentioned on the internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the 708 entries for Ron Pretty in the AustLit national literary database relevant to this debate? http://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/search/page?query=ron+pretty&facetSampleSize=500&facetValuesSize=10&count=50    Jfk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfknorth (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The initial recommendation for deletion was based on a misapprehension of the significance of the Order of Australia honour, and a misunderstanding of the significance of the Five Islands press work. Also additional objective reviews and references have been added to the article. --Paulknight34b (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant critical attention has now been documented, and the Order of Australia honour is significant. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (chatter)  @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (converse)  @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (lecture)  @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two notable awards, one at the national level, should be enough, and our article is adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep two ways. Per WP:ANYBIO multiple awards. And per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 October 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.