Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas L. Vaultonburg


 * 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. MelanieN put it well, I think. The problem here is that while Mr Vaultonburg has written, he has yet to be written about to the extent that makes him notable by Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I actually found some of the arguments made by Mr Vaultonburg in this discussion to be quite compelling, unfortunately Wikipedia requires not only that the subjects of its articles are notable but that the information in their articles is verifiable. the first line of that policy is particualrly relevant here- the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In order for information to be verfiable, it must be published in a reliable source first and it is extremely difficult to write an article on a person when basic biographical information is not verifiable. This closure should not be seen as a judgement that Mr Vaultonburg is not "worthy" of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, merely that his entry does not comply with our policies and guidelines at present. He may well gain notability sufficient for inclusion here in the future, but we cannot, unfortunately, write about subjects that may be notable in the future for the same reasons we can;t write about events that have yet to occur. Should Mr Vaultonburg gain sufficient coverage in reliable sources tomorrow, next week, next year or whenever, this entry may be re-created and I hope to see a respectable article there in the not-too-distant future, but for now, as an administrator, I'm bound by consensus and the current guidelines as they are written. Apologies for the length of the rationale, but I don't believe that either the subject or the article should merely be dismissed out of hand and forgotten about. Mr Vaultonburg or the authors of this article may contact me via Wikipedia's email system or on my talk page if they would like me to email them a copy of the source and I'll be happy to oblige. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thomas L. Vaultonburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Self-published writer of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary of user-submitted - no significant coverage from independent third party sources. Possible COI from several editors, one of whom appears to be the subject himself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep  Earlier discussion states "You don't get into Poets and Writers just by asking. You have to earn your way in and there are less than 5,000 American poets listed."  What is the criteria for earning one's way?   It shouldn't be subjective.  Thomas L. Vaultonburg is a working, published and notable poet.  When a poet is published, notable and their full time occupation is poetry, they should be listed.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.167.131 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — 98.196.167.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I AM the subject of this page, Thomas L. Vaultonburg. I did not create this page. I discovered it and made a minor edit of a poet's name that had been misspelled. In terms of what this editor has said, I would simply ask anyone familiar with the subject to confirm I am a member of Poets and Writers, an organization one must qualify to join through publication in respected journals. The listing of my periodical and book publications seems to be correct, but is not exhaustive, and most definitely demonstrates my wide publication in respected journals of American literature.

I would also add my publication in the anthology Thus Spake the Corpse, a major American anthology published by Black Sparrow Press.

The rest of the information contained in the article appears to be true, and is referenced in noteworthy American newspapers. There are no unsourced or factually incorrect assertions in this article, nor did I create it. In fact, I researched the topic and found that many subjects of a page eventually make edits to those pages to correct either factual or sourcing errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "emerging" is not "emerged". There is a lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources primarily about the subject, and the article is written, albeit not by the subject, in a florid and promotional style (it is almost certainly the "my friend Jenny" the subject notes in various social media). The article is the work of these two apparent friends with no other significant contributions. It is also largely comprised of laundry lists. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Those "laundry lists" are publication credits. In respected American journals, both academic and small press. You don't get into Poets and Writers just by asking. You have to earn your way in and there are less than 5,000 American poets listed. It's by merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not yet notable., based on the lack of third party publications--and consistent with the over-personal nature of the article  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are mostly self-published and I have been unable to find substantial reliable third-party coverage.  --Deskford (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the independent coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep   I'm not sure if those proposing deletion realize that lists of publications, such as Mr. Vaultonburg's list, are not mere "laundry lists." As someone who has been a poetry editor for over twenty years (Kumquat Meringue, The Rockford Review, Darklands, etc.), I can say that lists like this are part of the standard way poets and other writers establish their credentials when submitting their work to other publications. Even the most widely known (and notable) small press and academic press poets don't get paid for their work, so there's no way to claim financial success, and even the most notable poets are not often written up in "non-trivial independent reliable sources." This is all part of being a poet. So I think it's only fair to judge the validity of Vaultonburg's Wikipedia entry by the quality of his publication list, and his list shows that his work has been accepted for publication in some of the best poetry journals in the country. Journals such as "Exquisite Corpse," "Chiron Review," "Minotaur," "Rockford Review," and "Lilliput Review" have high standards for acceptance, and typically accept fewer than five percent of the thousands of submissions they receive every year. By this one criterion alone, Vaultonburg's Wikipedia page is valid. And the fact that the prestigious organization, Poets&Writers, includes him in their "Directory of Writers" is an important consideration. Here's a link to Poets&Writers' "Criteria for Listing."  Poets&Writers Criteria for Listing in Directory of Writers. This list of criteria is deceptive in that it gives the appearance of being "not a big deal," but the tens of thousands of poets and writers who have applied to the listing and been rejected know that acceptance into the listing requires other intangibles not listed there. Vaultonburg's appearance in the Poets&Writers Directory of Writers carries substantial weight. Deleting Mr. Vaultonburg's Wikipedia entry would be not only an injustice to a widely known and respected poet, who actually "lives the life he writes about"...but would also do a disservice to Wikipedia readers who would be deprived of a listing for an important contemporary poet. SpyPlane (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) — SpyPlane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia has its own standards for inclusion. If you would like to learn about these standards, see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:AUTHOR. You might also want to read WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Dlabtot (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried looking around for stuff about this guy and I really couldn't find anything. LinkedIn, Amazon and MySpace, sure, but nothing reliable. As such, the article fails WP:AUTHOR. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep  I think this process is useful. I appreciate it. I have a couple of points I'd like to make about this article and the concept of "notability" in general.

If editors use too high of a standard to apply to notability, or confuse notability with either fame or notoriety, they may make exclusions of articles which are completely noteworthy within the context of the milieu they were submitted. If your threshold of proving notability involves mentions in People or Time then all you're really doing is compiling an index of what is being written about in pop culture. But this is an encyclopedia. And the nature of an encyclopedia is a certain level of inclusiveness. If you're comparing poets to actors or even novelists, or just the most famous, writers, you're excluding a great deal of entries that have achieved a level of notability that would be perfectly acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's not just an encyclopedia of the rich and famous, or merely of those who have been reported on in mainstream media, it's an encyclopedia that should and ought to include those who have made valid contributions and are respected in their field of endeavor.

Further, I think exclusion of articles like this that those who are not overly familiar with a profession or endeavor might not be bowled over by denies an article to those who would find it useful. I may not think someone who is noted for having a cooking show (random example) is useful to me, but I would want that article in the encyclopedia for those who might. If an article is about a topic that isn't your cup of tea that doesn't mean it isn't someone else's.

Also, I'm not convinced those who are merely making one line statements about the lack of citations are even bothering to look at the article and follow those links. True, they don't go to The New York Times, but they go to the places that every other poet listed in here as noteworthy do (forgive me for that sentence). I think it's fair to compare poets to poets, not poets to Brad Pitt.

Once again, I appreciate this process. My word of caution is perhaps some people are being too stringent and trying to apply a standard of notability that would limit the nuanced entries that make a data base like this useful. If I just wanted a Who's Who or to be shown only those topics that were available everywhere else I'd go somewhere else. Isn't it better for someone to look for an article that may be slightly obscure and find it than go away wondering why it's not included.?

Thank you. Tvaulto (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of those who made a one-line statement, let me reassure you that I spent some time checking and searching for references. Most editors are very careful about this and don't make a "delete" statement casually.  You make some good points above: an encyclopedia should not just reflect popular culture, but this is why we ask for reliable sources from respected third-party publications.  If you could find some detailed coverage in a specialist poetry journal with which you have no connection that would help in verifying the article, for example.  --Deskford (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be redundant about this, but there are dozens of poetry journals listed which have done that. It's not common for poetry journals to publish exposes or "detailed" columns about poets. They publish poetry. For instance, you're not likely to find "detailed" coverage of ANY poet, aside from a few exceptions like Maya Angelou or Billy Collins. A poet's resume IS his/her publication credits. There are very, very few poets who achieve substantial press coverage, and those who do are usually celebrity poets like Jewel. Every source listed in that article is "reliable." There are no third rate publications there.

And I'm sort of mystified by this continuing demand for sources "I am not involved with." I am not involved with ANY of these publications aside from my literary press, which is one source amongst dozens. I have no connection with these sources other than being published there. I self publish because it is financially beneficial for me to do so. The nature of self-publishing has changed since my last book (1997). There was no Lulu or print-on-demand then. It was a laborious process and thought of quite differently even a decade ago. None of my work needs to be self-published, I do so because I value keeping all rights to the intellectual property and since most volumes of poetry are published in such small runs that there's no benefit for me to assign any kind of rights to anyone else when my product is already selling.

Finally (maybe, I have done a cursory search of American poets listed in Wikipedia, and can assert my level of notability is commenserate or exceeds many, if not most, of those entries of modern American poets. If you want to be fair, you should apply the editorial standard that is already in place, de facto, rather than refer to some ideal standard that is not being applied. The standard being used currently at Wikipedia to include modern American poets would have me well within the continuum of poets that have been included.

If you can honestly tell me you are applying the same editorial standard to my article which you have demonstrated in the past is the standard for inclusion in the category, then I say "good day." I wouldn't believe you, but at that point I am helpless to tilt at windmills. Just be fair.

Again, appreciation for the time people are taking. Tvaulto (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt your intentions are honorable, but you don't seem to be understanding the issue. You're typing lengthy responses, but nothing you've said has any relevance to the question of whether or not this article should be deleted.  Please review WP:Notability (people).  Those are the criteria we use to determine notability.  If the article doesn't meet that criteria, it gets deleted. Period. Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your point about other poets that you don't believe are as notable as yourself, please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dlabtot (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you might have missed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. My point WASN'T that those other poets weren't notable, my point was that they already have been deemed to be notable by their inclusion in Wikipedia, and because that is the standard being applied to constitute notability, I am asserting this article is well within that standard. It's a different assertion than the guideline you're quoting, the spirit of which seems to be "These articles are bad, therefore I deserve to get in." I'm saying these articles have passed muster and my article is reasonably and comfortably within that standard. I'm using the standard that exists to gauge the parameters of the standard at the high and low end and I'm asserting the article is comfortably within the standard already being used for inclusion, perhaps even right in the middle. Yes, other stuff exists, because editorial decisions were made that allowed it to exist, and a reader can only assume what does exist reflects the editorial policy of those who are editing. Quoting some rule then saying something like "And that's the way it is because Stone Cold says so. Period.," is sort of ridiculous. That's why a process like this is in place, so gradients on a continuum of possibilities can be weighed and assessed. You have to consider the possible ridiculousness of a single standard that comprises notability, like having a bar that only has pretty waitresses... period. In the literary community this article has gravity and is of use to people who might want to seek it out. Maybe it's not pretty to you, that's your choice. But you want to make that choice for everyone and I think you haven't proven it's not notable. All you've done is assert it's not notable. I say the Earth's not round. I haven't proven it, but I can say it. You've proven nothing. Tvaulto (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you haven't reviewed WP:Notability (people)... you might want to also check out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dlabtot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't agree with you. That's allowed, right? Honestly, what have YOU said? You keep putting up this link as if it ends debate. And I'm saying it doesn't. I'm saying I contest that it's not notable and offer the references to respected journals within the discipline as evidence. Then you offer a link about "I didn't hear that" which also presupposes that YOU have the last word and after you have spoken (or laid down a link) that debate is over. That's not how life works. As far as I can tell that's not how this process works, either. If you have an assertion of non-notability, go ahead and offer evidence. Go into the references and either dispute them or explain why they are not notable. Those references exist. Dispute them. Then, after you dispute them, go ahead and explain why those very same third party publications are sufficient to prove notability for others, but not me. Tvaulto (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are 'allowed' to disagree with the WP:Notability (people) guideline about what are the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such a disagreement is not likely to affect the outcome of this deletion debate, however. I've tried to offer advice; clearly it's not wanted, so no more will be forthcoming. Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My position remains the same after taking your links into consideration. The original request for deletion was done in opposition to those very guidelines you seem to place such credence in. And it seems to have been done capriciously and without any opportunity to make any sort of changes to the page, which had been there a while and visited by other Wiki editors. The request is also factually inaccurate in that I am NOT a self-published author. My last full collection of poems is self-published, which is not uncommon even amongst very famous poets. The rest of those citations are third party publications. I will beat this horse until it mooes because I believe I am stating a valid case. What advice are you referring to, specifically? I find NO constructive advice or attempt to work with me in any way from anyone who has spoken here. Quote it. I find there's a lot of selective quoting of rules here, but a whole lot of ignoring other guidelines and rules. "Callin' it your job Hoss don't make it right." And you'll be back, because I'm offering legitimate and well-reasoned points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There still is, and always has been, opportunity to make changes to the page. The best way to ensure the page is not deleted would be to add reliable third-party references to the article, or, so as not to be accused of conflict of interest, add them to the talk page of the article and ask others to include them in the article itself.  --Deskford (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've added a tag concerning reliability of sources. Would you be kind enough to describe those sources? Or are you merely hoping whoever reads this won't do the due diligence of looking? You could remove half the sources on that page right now and it would still demonstrate a level of notability in my opinion. You have my permission (though it's been demonstrated claw law prevails here) to go in there and remove any damn reference you find doesn't meet your standards. Just show your work and sign it. I'm not sure some of you are acting in good faith here. So far, three main editors raising their objections, but when asked to show examples clap their hands like black-jack dealers and disappear. Your tag is meaningless unless you support it with examples and evidence. The other crap is sort of opinion. Who's notable and who's not but challenging sources is sort of like questioning someone's honesty. When you do that, you offer evidence, or you retract your statement. Go get the sources that are in question and show them. Or retract.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)  Tvaulto (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been repeatedly told that independent sources are required to establish notability. You've chosen to ignore that. You've been pointed to guidelines such as WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Notability (people) and you've chosen to ignore that. Fine. If you want to ignore the advice you've been given - that's your choice. However, you should be aware that accusations of bad faith are prohibited at Wikipedia and could lead to sanctions, so you probably should refrain from such. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm going to go ahead and stand by that, citing that repeated requests for examples were ignored. And that editors appear to be acting in concert to make it appear consensus is being reached when all that seems to be occurring is three or four editors showing a pattern of behavior. I could go and ask a bunch of people to come in here, too, but I'm not going to. I went to your discussion pages and names pop up over and over. You can't make the kind of source accusations you made in an academic setting and you shouldn't be able to here. For all your quoting of rules it's that type of intellectually dishonest behavior that keeps this from being used as a reliable source. No go tell the hall monitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaulto (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks as self promotion.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Just being a writer, author, poet etc. is not enough to get a page in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and there has to be third-party, independent information from reliable sources as defined here. Mr. Vaultonburg has published things, yes, but nobody has written ABOUT him - no scholarly evaluations, no reviews, nothing at all that I could find. And that is what is missing to establish him as "notable". --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (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.