Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Arturo Abreu

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Arturo Abreu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Manuel Arturo Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability per WP:BLP, also it has no article links to his work of major art shows which he did from 2016-2018. lacking reliable sources coverage as well. Sheldybett (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not covered in mainstream press of at least a regional interest. The style smells of general promotional intentions and I am getting a general sense that sources are scavenged to justify what the proponents want to present rather than writing about subject around high depth coverage in high quality sources with intended audience base spanning regionally or wider.Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC). dunno, maybe the cumulative impact of so many blogs, small online zines, grants.... notability still looks marginal to me, but I'm gonna back off without opining further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added sources that show that his work has been the subject of critical attention. Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing is still minor, non-bluelinked websites. User:Vexations, if you would bring the 3 best sources that you regard as WP:SIGCOV to this page and ping me, I will reconsider. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is all I have for now. I don't see a requirement in SIGCOV that the publications must have their own article, only that they are reliable and independent of the subject, which I think is the case here. FWIW, I have no connection to the subject whatsoever, and before I noticed this AfD, I had never heard of Abreu. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bluelinked sites are certainly not required, but bluelinking does make it easier for editors to sort out WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also recognized The Stranger (newspaper), but it's just an events listing. possibly not evenan edited list of listings [1]
Then there is the fact that the bio details are sourced to the Academy of American Poets, which is exactly as exclusive as Facebook.
This looks like mere PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, those are exactly the ones I didn't add. I did add: http://thefanzine.com/thinking-beyond-colonial-gender-a-review-of-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/, https://www.aqnb.com/2017/01/30/the-violence-of-naming-and-necessity-reading-through-porous-bodies-in-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/ and https://apogeejournal.org/2017/05/01/yani-robinson-reviews-transtrender-manuel-arturo-abreus-chapbook/. When you say "clicked one that I could identify", does that mean you ignore the sources you don't recognize? Vexations (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It "means" only that assessing notability is time-consuming, hard work, and, therefore, the custom has evolved to sometimes politely request that an editor who seems to be familiar with the subject, and who is arguing to "k" indicate 2 or 3 WP:RS that support notability especially well. Thank you for now doing so.
  • . a book review] in AQNB , a very small "editorial platform committed to independent media" [3]
  • a book review in [thefanzine.com] thefanzine.com, another small literary magazine.
  • It is unclear to me what degree of editorial control these small literary publication have over their contributors, whether reviews are assigned, whether they are edited, whether the writer are paid,, or indeed much about them. This is the problem. Notability for this "artist, poet, and curator" is being quesitoned precisely because the strongest sourcing an editor arguing to keep has been able to bring is reviewa of a single book in three very small, literary zines. This is the kind of sourcing writers have BEFORE they become notable. notable writers get reviews in better-known publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that the sources I added are "small" (you've mentioned that five times). I'm not sure what "big enough" would be. As far as I can tell, we have no policy that says a source must have a minimum number of subscribers or have a print version or meet some other quantative measure. I think the sources I have added are independent of the subject and reliable. I'll note for example that Apogee has an editorial staff and does not accept submissions. AQNB has an editorial staff as well, and so does thefanzine. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, sorry, I'm the original editor, and I am a new editor. I included this as a part of an Edit-athon, and I purposely started on it with little information, so that the students who came to the Edit-athon would have one to improve. (However, I ended up editing myself, obviously). I disagree with a lot of the assertions made about the source. Firstly, Academy of American Poets is not "equivalent of Facebook." You have to be solicited to publish a poem with them, and they have requirements including significant previous publications. Once you have been solicited by an editor, the board can still choose to reject your work. So I believe there is significant enough oversight to meet your concerns. And if your poem is published, as abreu's was, as part of Poem-A-Day, the poem is seen by 500,000+ readers. [1] As for Apogee, their editor just won the PEN/Nora Magid Award for Magazine Editing for their work on Apogee, so I feel like that is also a reliable source [2] I have added several other references that mention abreu and included links to some of their own work. Just FYI, I have no connection to abreu nor have I ever met them. I am a poet and executive editor for an award-winning independent press, and my only interest in this poet is increasing awareness for Latinx writers. Thanks for the comments and notes, and I hope this wiki keeps growing. PoetryPerson1 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)PoetryPerson1 15 March 2019[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem-day
  2. ^ https://pen.org/pen-magid-award/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can become a member of Academy of American Poets, but you are not necessarily featured as a poet just because you are. None of the benefits listed include being published by the organization. It's an arts organization, meaning it survives on sponsors, grants, and members, just like an organization like the Met. You can become a member of the Met, but you are not going to be able to have an art show just because you're a member. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this poet is a member. Instead, he is featured as a poet by the Academy of American Poet's program "Poem-A-Day." They have multiple prestigious awards and programs, none of which are connected by membership. https://www.poets.org/academy-american-poets/programs.
  • I accept that having a poem selected for "Poem a Day" is having a poem published. Publishing a poem does not, however, make the poem or the poet notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITEKILL. The page creator, an editor who joined the project last year has created a series of articles, some on notable artists, has now reference bombed the page. Many of these sources are not usable at all. Some are PRIMARY. Take the 2018 Oregon Book Awards, for example, citation #25. This is a real award, but it is a distinctly minor literary prize. I note that most of the recipients are not bluelinked. The fact that this artist won the award is sourced to Literary Arts, which is the website of the Oregon Book Award. WP:BOMBARDING the page with such references does not establish notability. I cannot see that anything in the "Awards" section establishes notability. The "Art Show" section is very brief, but it has a PRIMARY problem. Having work in a group show at New Museum would be impressive, except that the only source is Rhizome which is published by the New Museum. I can't get the first link in te=he "Art Shows" section to work, the second cite is to a show that Abreu put together, the 3rd is the Rhizome cite, and the 4th and last is a social media post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:PoetryPerson1, You could persuade me with 3 or 4 truly solid sources with working links. My searches aren't finding much about him, and when I try clicking links to publications I know, like the Philadelphia Tribune, it did not work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks. But it DOES NOT support the assertion on our page that: "abreu is most well-known for their discussion of the term, 'Online Imagined Black English.'" It shows it that he wrote an essay on a widely discussed topic, and that the essay was mentioned in other essays on the topic. Perhaps User:Graywalls, User:PoetryPerson1, or Nom User:Sheldybett would be willing to revisit. To me, this oversoruced page shows that it is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (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/Manuel_Arturo_Abreu&oldid=1072146998"