Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Foust

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Foust

[edit]
Graham Foust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not notable per WP:PROF or WP:AUTH. All references are dead links, and there's enough not enough out there to demonstrate notability. Lhakthong (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC) To be more specific, there are a couple of mentions in newspapers for poetry readings, but this is not uncommon for academics with published poetry, and its not uncommon for academic poets to have published works. Same goes for publications in themselves. Just about every tenured professor has publications, and those with books have had it reviewed somewhere.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can find plenty of academic poets/artists that would fit the above, though, and that doesn't make then notable academics. It makes them accomplished academics. Two different things, no? Notable academics are usually accomplished, but being an accomplished academic alone hardly makes one notable for an encyclopedia. I might be persuaded if you could tell me how you think what you presented satisfies any of the specific criteria listed in WP:PROF or WP:AUTH.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are clutching at straw men - just because you claim you have "found plenty of academics" who meet a certain set of criteria that you've chosen has no bearing on whether this particular article has merit for notability. These other people whom you have supposedly found have no relevance to this article; unless you are prepared to provide evidence of these people, including citations as provided above, then we'll have to assume they don't exist. 109.153.150.104 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a starred review in Publishers Weekly: "Foust has achieved a wide reputation in and beyond experimental poetry circles for his clipped, breathless poems, often no longer than one or two haiku, but packing an intimate punch that belies their length." That satisfies WP:AUTH in my opinion. There are also more than 100 Google Books references; I think he would pass under GNG. --JN466 13:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just dropping in from "recent IP changes". I'm a deletionist by nature (public service announcement), but this author has multiple publications, has several books for sale on Amazon.com an has been reviewed in Publisher's Weekly [3]. Whether it's an independent review or not, I don't know, but my initial take is that this article has at least some merit. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(general response) I just am trying to find the boundary between putting onto Wikipedia every academic who has published a few books and received good reviews from those who meet the spirit of the criteria in WP:PROF or WP:AUTH. Again, most tenured professors have books and have had them reviewed. Is everyone who gets a starred review in Publishers Weekly thusly notable? That makes them an accomplished academic, not a notable one. Let's get down to the point: which of these criteria do you think he meets (and take particular notice of the language in 11):
  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
  6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
  9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  11. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  12. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

--Lhakthong (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, he's more notable as a poet than as an academic. He might not have been notable enough for a biography purely based on his publications as an academic. But if Publishers Weekly says, "Foust has achieved a wide reputation in and beyond experimental poetry circles", and we have in-depth coverage like this 3,000-word feature in The Nation, he clears WP:AUTH #1, as well as WP:GNG, by a good margin. His participation in academic discourse only enhances that.--JN466 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he's probably more notable as a poet than academic, so I'd be happy just to stick to the criteria listed for WP:AUTH, which are 9-12 above. I see where you're coming from regarding his poetry, and I guess I'm more convinced now than when I first tagged the article (especially the feature in The Nation), but I'm not sure that takes him over the bar, because a feature article in a magazine is not the same as having his work "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," or anything that would satisfy the spirit of that criteria. The Nation feature might satisfy the criteria of being considered important, but I'm hesitant there because I'm not sure such an article indicates that he is important enough that he is widely cited by peers and successors. Does he have any successors? Is he widely cited by his peers? I'm clearly outnumbered here, but I really stand on the cautionary side notable academics and artists, because I've seen too many BLPs that were for clearly accomplished people but nonetheless ones that barely, if at all, eek over the notability line.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Lhakthong, I sympathize with your position vis-a-vis inclusion, and find your argument rational. I sometimes find myself asking, "Would I find this person in Britannica?" and usually answering, "nope". Foust seems to me to fall into a gray area. We've all seen the articles that get the speedy: "John Smith, famous for being temporary co-captain of the West Middle School Junior Varsity Badminton Club during the catgut-versus-nylon strings scandal of 1972." as well as the stubs that desperately need expansion and good cites: "A. Einstein worked as postal clerk and wrote papers on physics." Foust probably wouldn't make the cut in Britannica, but I'm not sure whether that would be because he's not worth mentioning or because they can't fit *everything* into the paper edition. If, say, ten students per year look up Foust to find out more about where he's coming from, has Wikipedia served as a resource for those people? Would we be serving the spirit if not the letter of the law? TreacherousWays (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, if I thought for one instant that this was some sort of sales gimmick or that he was being touted as the-next-great-thing? I'd revert to my rabid deletionist mode in an instant. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and I completely agree, except for the last part. I would think students look up their professors all the time. The question is whether students are doing academic research on Foust or whether his poetry is considered canonical for certain courses or he's making whatever the poetry equivalent is of the NYT Best Seller's list. I'm not convinced that's the case. So, I still strongly side on delete until he or his work is subject of more than reviews (which is what The Nation piece is), however stellar. But again, if I'm the only one ardently arguing for delete, I'm willing to give in.--Lhakthong (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times does not feature poetry best-seller lists often, but when it did, on this occasion, Foust was there, at no. 3. --JN466 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable author; WP:PROF does not really apply. Reviews are what show notability of authors, and PW reviews are highly selective. The request for more than reviews is unnecessarily stringent,and asking that a write be "canonical" amounts to limiting coverage to the famous. Lhakthong does have a point & I do not reject his view entirely: this is just over the line for notability , but it is over it. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Foust&oldid=1070588250"