Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. R. Moses


 * 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  02:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

W. R. Moses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable poet. I find no biographies of him at all and even his Goodreads page suggests no-one cares... The references in the article either link to his poetry or simply prove that he existed without establishing notability. — Iadmc  ♫ talk 05:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator—Article has been substantially expanded and is now liberally referenced with reliable sources which clearly establish notability. I was unable to find such sources when I made the nomination and as stated below notability for poets is always difficult to assess. 4 keeps (one provisional) and considerable expansion to establish notability is a clear case of The Heymann Standard. Thank you to those who contributed — Iadmc  ♫ talk 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, reviews of an author's work in scholarly journals and general circulation periodicals show far more than that a writer "existed". They establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They weren't there when I made the nom. That and the fact I couldn't find them were exactly why I couldn't establish notability. I am presently reading all I am able to by the various independent sources now cited in the article so bear with me, please — Iadmc  ♫ talk 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-known 20th cen American poet. I have added a a book about him and 4 other poets by Paul Goodman  I also added a review of 1 of Moses' books, other reviews of his books are easy to find by clicking JSTOR on tool bar above.  Suggest Nom withdraw this obvious keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book you added (Five Young American Poets) was a compilation of his and other's poetry not a review and is already in the article. — Iadmc  ♫ talk 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Jstor: "No results found" — Iadmc  ♫ talk 13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * JSTOR shows 6 reviews of his work, on search of: W.R.Moses, 15 hits  on search of "W.R. Moses" - with a space.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And when I click JSTOR on the toolbar at the top of this page, I get 185 hits. all appear to be this W.R., they include reviews and front matter but appear overwhelmingly to link to his poems as published by literary magazines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When I click the JSTOR links you give that you say yielded 6 and 15 hits, it tells me 0 hits. Largoplazo (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN. I did a quick, minor, expand/source of this article on a prima facie notable poet brought here by an editor who suffers from a severe case of the endemic Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMIC bias,  recentism.  A disease brought on by the failure simple, quick searches to instantly discover notability for individuals like Moses whose careers took place in the ancient period (in this case, the mid-20th century).   Lots more sources exist on this poet whose books were reviewed in obscure periodicals including the Washington Post, Hartford Courant, and New York Times. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, as per, WP:BITE this highly plausible article, even when I came upon it, was the first article of a editor who has made a mere handful of edits over several years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Please be civil. I brought this here in good faith as I could not find anything on this poet in any of the usual outlets. Your links to Jstor yield zero results for me (and Largoplazo, above). I even joined to see if that would help. No. The only time I do get results is without quotes, and then the articles yielded are about Moses. I still cannot find any sources. Highbeam gives three links but I don't know how significant they are as I am not a member. Scholar gives a load of stuff on medicine. You seem to have magicked a few up. Perhaps because you are in the US and I'm in the UK? If there is any bias in me, that is the only source of it. My usual interests include Classical music, the Greek myths and Classic literature, etc... hardly "recentist". (You may also wish to review my user boxes.) Please continue to expand the article from all the sources you have found and we'll let other people decide. Three people commenting, two of whom cannot source the still embryonic article, is hardly HEY, yet. Finally, I had no idea what the status of the editor who created the article was: I made my assessment on my complete failure to confirm notability. BTW, how do I join ProQuest? — Iadmc  ♫ talk 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Add: Now I've joined Jstor, I can read the Harriet Zinnes review (of Moses and another) and it hardly supports notability: "Both poets are producing... poems of lassitude and of strange lackluster. ... Poets are so tired, so tired." I can only find Moses' poetry otherwise but I'll keep looking — Iadmc  ♫ talk
 * Even very simple gsearch on "W.C.Moses + poet produces this non-paywalled, dispositive page of links: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked through to page 10 and found no more third party sources than those we have. The vast majority is W.R. Moses' poetry, his articles and writings, or his editorship on journals. BTW, the last paragraph of Biography is wrong: Monson was talking about browsing Moses' library and finding the Collected Poems of Edwin Arlington Robinson not a work of Moses: Chapter "Uses of Biography" in Letter to a Future Lover: Marginalia... by Ander Monson — Iadmc  ♫ talk 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Discussion at article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The reference to Harriet Zinnes does not mention her own status, which is not as a major poet. A major poet, a member of the Fugitives, did comment on Moses, as found in the Wiki article itself. I quote: "His poem 'Further Document on the Human Brain' [9] was commented on by poet Allen Tate in Trial Balances: An Anthology Of New Poetry.[10] Tate states that 'the feature of Moses’ work that most forcibly strikes' him is 'the conscious control of his material.' He notices the juxtaposition of that control with its 'shock of immediacy'." These lines in "Boy at Target Practice" do not lack luster nor are they tired: "Each time greenbones, you pressed the neat trigger/you punched a new horizontal into the air." The use of "authorities" should be approached with caution.Altj1 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)altj1
 * I agree. We do need more third party sources however. I hope I didn't offend you by PRODding then AfDing this? I genuinely could not find anything on him and had never heard of him. Good poet, though I must say — Iadmc  ♫ talk 19:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Iadmc, can you lay out the standard of notability that you are judging this poet by? I had never heard of him either, until happening on this AFD.  But, to me, and I edit writers at AFD regularly, the article looked like an obvious keep tome when you nominated it.  I added a few sources, then more so that the article is now sourced to more than enough WP:RS to pass our ordinary standards of notability for writers.  WP:AUTHOR #3:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work....   such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."   note that reviews of Moses' poetry books already on the page include major daily newspapers and major literary journals.  Perhaps you are not familiar with Notability (people)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, it is a truism that most articles at WP "need more third party sources". We do not, however, delete because an article could be improved by better sourcing.  At AFD the question at issue is: Whether the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My criteria are those found at WP:GNG as elucidated by WP:BIO; my nomination, as outlined above, was based on this version which I felt hadn't addressed the issues I'd raised in the PROD four-and-a-half days earlier (edit redacted per copyvio). My nomination was made after two days of inactivity in the article. More specifically, I could not find any secondary sources per, WP:PSTS, (whether WP:RS or not) and those in the article didn't seem to back up claims of notability. Anybody can contribute to a notable journal if they happen to write a few half decent poems that meet that journal's wishlist. Many journals publish any old bod's poems, for that matter, in Readers Poetry or such like. Also, the phrase "Self-description in..." rang alarm bells and just because even a couple of notable fellow poets say they like someone's work as "distinct" and having "conscious control of [the] material" doesn't ensure that they are going to be well received by anyone else or even remembered. Plenty now forgotten have had similar accolades. I could write plenty more, but tl;dr... — Iadmc  ♫ talk 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is untrue that "Many journals publish any old bod's poems." (There are, of course, print-for-pay journals that do so) Journals like The New Yorker - which published Moses repeatedly - do not "publish any old bod's poems."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant newspapers. The British press do. Even the broadsheets — Iadmc  ♫ talk 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * fyi, to cite an old version, click "view history" in the toolbar, then click the date your want to look at. In this case here: is the article as it stood when you nominated it for deletion.  note however that notability is not asessed by the condition of an article as it stands, but,rather, by the quesiton of whether sources exist in the universe to verify facts and support notability.  Other editors should note that the article has undergone an extensive WP:HEYMANN.  For may part, I am attempting to understand why you continue to argue about this article.  Are you aware that Nominating editors simply wirte that they have changed their opinion when another editor brings sources, or points to a policy that justifies KEEP?  It is not at all dishonourable to realize that you erred, or that you changed your mind after being shown a policy or additional sources. It happens all the time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not entirely convinced and I'd really like the opinion of more than you, me and the creator and one other minor comment. — Iadmc  ♫ talk 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you think that this poet does not meet WP:BIO #3.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK:
 * 1) 2 peers saying they like his work isn't being "widely cited".
 * 2) The article doesn't claim he originated "a significant new concept, theory, or technique".
 * 3) He may qualify for having "created... well-known work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" but the article does not tell us what the various journals and newspapers say. They may say his work is rubbish and not worth the time and money reading for all I know as I can't actually access ProQuest to find out. (I know WP:PAYWALL, BTW: can you access those archives to find out what they do say?)
 * 4) No claim his work has ".. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention... (the other criteria don't apply, as he is not an architect or fine artist etc).

I think we should let this rest a while to see if others wish to contribute. You can still edit and if you are right it will be delisted in six days unless you convince me to withdraw. I'm warming but still need more to go on. Why do think it does meet WP:ARTIST? — Iadmc  ♫ talk 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE I have read the articles that I cite. Please refrain from slander.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't merely "think" that meeting WP:AUTHOR #3 suffices, I 'know that this is the way authors are routinely judged to pass WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not slandering you. I'm asking if can you please tell me what they say? — Iadmc  ♫ talk 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question, "can you access those archives to find out what they do say?" seemed to imply that I cited material that I had not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory: It was a request per "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". Sorry if it was ambiguous. The introduction to and the review of Five Young American Poets were pretty cool towards his poetry. Per your comment below this fact should be in the article. I will add it. You may yet be right but so far I just see a very minor poet who had a little success for a time — Iadmc  ♫ talk 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you stated that you now have access to JSTOR? The Hartford Courant and Washington Post are reviews.  Unfortunatelyly, they are photo images of newsprint, I cannot simply cut and paste them here.  Perhaps I will type some of the text to the page (a tedious task.)  But whether or not I do that, they do support notability, simply by existing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm asking how it meets #3 in your opinion. I know it needs to that's why I nom'ed it — Iadmc  ♫ talk 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasting my statement above:  WP:AUTHOR #3:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.... such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not, in fact, particularly matter whether they panned it or loved it; the point is that major literary journals and major big city newspapers considered his work important enough to assign reviews of several books as they were published over the years. The reviews themselves confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #3, as well as meets WP:GNG. This article is well sourced at this point. In my view the nom should be withdrawn. Or if not, I am sure some more editors may stop by to leave their points. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep. Notability of poets is always difficult to assess, but this may pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Nom withdraws  Nom, User:Iadmc, an experienced editor who may not have previous experience at AFD, attempted to withdraw by removing the template form the page and typing "withdraw" in his edit note. here: .  A bot replaced the template. I assume that he acted in good faith in response to my suggestion above advising him that a Nom can withdraw (I have found that some Noms can be unaware that they can do this, sometimes responding to such advice in the words of King George as interpreted by the inimitable Lin Manuel Miranda, "I wasn't aware that was something a person could do." #Hamilton).E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 17 January 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.