Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bates (poet)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Bates (poet)[edit]

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

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

Delete: fails notability, GNG, SIGCOV, POET. Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as mentioned above, does not meet WP:POET. His only somewhat famous work is "Speak Gently", but I couldn't find good sources even for that. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Speak Gently" is fairly widely reprinted, and his poetry has attracted a bit of critical discussion (though not an overwhelming amount) [1] [2] [3]. More importantly, we get significant coverage of Bates here from the reputable Martin Gardner, which includes mention of obituaries in the Philadelphia Public Ledger and Philadelphia Inquirer, and a bit of coverage here. There are also some brief contemporary reviews of The Eolian, ie [4] and [5] and [6]. I think there's enough here to establish notability, especially for someone from the 19th century. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like some good sources indeed, should they be added to the article as references? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- '''Keep''' Based on your listing of these handful of citations, I think there is a chance that the article subject could meet notability requirements. But, those citations need to be added to the article or else it simply appears too think to make it.WmLawson (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources presented above, Bates appears to meet WP:NBASIC, and the article should be kept rather than deleted per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The fact that it was parodied in a rather famous book indicates it was at least somewhat well-known at the time. The new sources given are ok, it's not a lot, but just barely at GNG. Died over 100 yrs ago, not likely to have much coverage unless a scholar takes an interest and does a deep dive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Refs indicated above support WP:NEXIST. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2024 (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.