Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Belz

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Belz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE. Currently listed as a stub, hasn't been edited (sans minor vandalism today) since 2010. Noted that there was a brief discussion of sockpuppeting in the edit history as well. Rcvines (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently Notable: Does not appear to fail WP:BLP1E; publications from Belz appear in well known publications from at least 2003 McSweeney's [1] to the present. His book publishing proceeded through all those years as well Plausible Worlds [2] and Lovely, Raspberry [3] and The Bird Hoverer [4]. Notoriety as a poet means publishing regularly and doing readings regularly. YouTube contains quite a few public readings from Belz [5] . Neither does he fail WP:LOWPROFILE on several counts: In terms of media attention, he has done book signings and was interviewed by the HuffPo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexandra-marvar/aaron-belz-on-poetry-and-_b_1099919.html. As far as eminence, there are many eminent modern poets missing from Wikipedia (e.g., Mike Topp), and this probably owes to the generally bivocational life of the poet. Other poets with similar patterns of notoriety and publication would include Adrian Mateika [6] and Sally Ball [7] Barlowjon 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently notable. Concur with previous comment. Additionally, Belz's poetry has been reviewed in Library Journal (print), The Rumpus [8], Pleiades [9], and other journals and newspapers. He has also been interviewed several times by nationally-recognized publications including the 2012 edition of Poet's Market (print) [10]. NOTE: It appears that the initial request for deletion came from an account created shortly after the subject's widely publicized debate with comedian Patton Oswalt (see Salon.com, June 5, 2013, "How one Twitter user got famous by allegedly stealing comedians’ tweets" [11]), and should therefore itself be considered part of the vandalism. Recommendation to restore this article to its condition prior to June 4, 2013, the date of the debate and vandalism. Southcherryentropy 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that the content that was removed consisted entirely of favourable reviews of the author's work and was deleted to enable the article to conform with Wikipedia's strict guidelines on neutrality.Deb (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently notable. Concur with above comments. Does not appear to fail WP:BLP1E due to his continued activity as a poet: books published in 2005 (Plausible Words [12]), 2007 (The Bird Hoverer [13]), 2010 (Lovely, Raspberry [14]) and 2014 (Glitter Bomb [15]). He has also been published separately in The Bedside Guide to No Tell Motel (2007) [16] as well as those mentioned above. He also does not appear to fail WP:LOWPROFILE; in addition to citations above, he has been published in the Wall Street Journal [17]. Punchy5k (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references give no indication of notability. There appears to have been some canvassing going on above. I will investigate further. Deb (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Closing admin, please note that of the three users voting to keep this article, one has a total of 21 wikipedia edits, another has a total of 9, and the third has made only one edit - the one above. The similarity in the non-standard wording suggests collusion at the very least. I will place advice notes on all their talk pages.Deb (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (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.