Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Goes Down
- 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 of the debate was Merge to Rebecca Fransway. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suzanne Goes Down[edit]
Non-notable poem. The poet seems somewhat notable (though her article needs to be cleaned up), but this particular poem does not have any notability. Google search returns 4 hits: this article, a reprint of the poem, a lesson plan for a teacher that taught this poem, and a porn site. Little content to say about the poem--article originally had the poem in it but I removed it because of copyright issues. Metros232 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom--Jusjih 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to Rebecca Fransway, or delete. Articles for individual poems seem a little much, especially when Shakespeare's sonnets are all in a single article. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUZANNE GOES DOWN Should Not Be Deleted
- Suzanne Goes Down is a significant poem that should not be deleted. For one thing significance of poetry is often a matter of the world view and experience of the reader. Also, this poem is mentioned in several reviews as an excellent example of American Outlaw Poetry. One review by Mark Spitzer can be found at Jack Magazine, in which the poem is mentioned as well as several lines quoted.
- The poem has additional significance in that the author is the editor/author of a particularly controversial book 12-Step Horror Stories: True Tales of Misery Betrayal and Abuse in AA, NA and 12-Step Treatment,which was banned in bookstores in certain areas due to the clamour of local recovery houses and individual members of 12-step groups. The dialogue in the poem also points to the uselessness of A.A. meetings for the speaker. Because of this social blasphemy, the poem is just as likely to be a target of a book-burning-minded minority as the book was.
- All of this history can be verified by dialogue between Mrs. Fransway & members of 12 step groups during 1996-2000 recorded on google groups.
- The poem itself should not have been removed from the article. Mrs. Fransway gives permission for it's use on her web site [1].
- Frank R. Keilman, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.171.166 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Fransway's other work does not make this poem significant. Her book is mentioned in the article on her. The poem is copyright 1996 apparently, if the poem is "just as likely to be a target..." there would probably be some action being taken already since it's been 10 years already. As for her poem being allowed on Wikipedia, where does it say that anyone can reproduce it elsewhere? I don't even see anywhere that states that it is her website. Metros232 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments
Anyone who has not seen the permission on the website gothicromance.net needs to clean their eyeglasses.
As far as gothicromanc.net, one can very easily perform a whois on the site and find out who it belongs to: Rebecca Fransway.
Suzanne Goes Down Has Been Expanded
The article Suzanne Goes Down has been changed, adding a paragraph proving significance of the poem.
--Prof. F. R. Keilman 12:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but that notice was not there yesterday. That website changed in the last day. In addition to adding that line about permission, it also moved the poem down in the page In fact, here's a cache of what the website was just a few days ago.
These points are now moot. The article has been expanded, explaining the significance of the poem. Later the poem itself will probably be added again, once I learn how to register permission for use.
--Prof. F. R. Keilman 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Rebecca Fransway]. This is readable now, but still better placed under the poet's entry, no matter how spirited Prof. Keilman's defense. ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Trialsanderrors. Seems similar to WP:FICT's guide to discuss characters within the work's article; discuss poems within the poet's article. btw, someone has been adding articles for some of Shakespeare's Sonnets.--Chaser T 20:17, 11 June 2006 (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.