Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national poets

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. In light of this result, and the character of the introductory section of the page, I am moving it back to its original title, National poet. bd2412 T 14:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

List of national poets[edit]

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

This seems to be almost entirely WP:OR, including the supposed definition of 'national poet' in the lead. I cannot find anywhere else a clear definition of this term, or any indication that it means anything other than a notable (in some person's opinion) poet of the country concerned. Very few of those listed are sourced, and none of those that are sourced gives any helpful understanding of what 'national poet' might mean. No justification or criterion is given in the list for any of the inclusions. There is no separate WP article 'National poet' to correspond to the list - the link for this just goes back to the 'List of...' article. The article is therefore a random list of editors' favourites, it seems. The whole thing is unencyclopaedic; and fails under notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Therefore, delete. Smerus (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources which discuss the topic both in a general way and for specific countries. For example, see:

Figures of National Poets
American Bards: Walt Whitman and Other Unlikely Candidates for National Poet
The Making of the National Poet
Foundations of National Identity

So, if there should be some dispute whether poets like Shakespeare, Burns and Dylan Thomas merit this status for their respective countries, it will not be difficult to find such sources to settle the matter. The topic passes WP:LISTN and so our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smerus brings up valid points, but the sources found by Andrew demonstrate "national poet" is a term of currency in a general sense, though not as an state title or honor, so it's not OR exactly ("national poet" is uncapitalized, not a proper noun or title). The lack of sources is an unfortunate legacy cleanup (most of it written 2005-07 when sourcing was less an issue) - but AfD is a topic-level discussion not content-level. Over time it does look like some editors add whatever name they want, so the list of poets probably needs to be deleted entirely and begun over with only those that have sources. This is the type of article that will need constant watching to avoid OR creeping in. Topics of national pride can be a pain to maintain. -- GreenC 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the points made above by Andrew and GreenC. But if we remove all those listed who are not sourced as 'national poets' there will not be much left of the list. It would in those circumstances be better then to rename the article as 'National poet', to include a sourced definition and just the few sourced examples to illustrate the definition.

But I am not convinced that there is any demonstration in Andrew's comments of the validity of 'National poet' as a topic. The book he cites 'The Making of the National Poet' is about Shakespeare only; 'Foundations of National Identity' deals only with Mickiewicz, and states 'in the same way as we have national composers, we have also national poets'. But do we have 'national composers'? What exactly des this mean, or, more precisely, define? The blurb for 'American Bards' states "Walt Whitman has long been regarded as the quintessential American bard, the poet who best represents all that is distinctive about life in the United States." Do we accept a commercial blurb as a source for an encyclopaedic definition? 'Figures of National Poets' is not much more help; it actually denies that Shakespeare is a national poet - "a national poet must write poetry which identifies with the nation's cause" , which would also seem to cast doubt on Whitman and others. In short, this seems to be an encyclopaedic minefield, and it's not clear to me that WP should be in effect endorsing this vague concept which seems to mean merely whatever people want it to mean. --Smerus (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia's are not (always) precise definitions that's why we have a multiple POV rule. I agree to rename and drop the "list of", prose is the better way to go describing the sources and context of how the term is applied, even including contradictory POVs. --GreenC 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been

included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is covered in the article, but is this generally an annual honor? Do nations change there national poets regularly? Should dates be included in the article? How is it to be maintained next year? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is not an offical or formal honour of any sort, just a turn of phrase which is applied randomly by commentators.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book cited by several academic publications is directly relevant. It defines the term as relevant to the emergence of national identities, primarily during Romanticism. Many other academic papers use the term as it applies to this or that country (see [1], [2], [3]), so I'd say this topic easily passes list notability as the topic is covered as a group. Diego (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this definition is a help - though it would be nice if other supporting definitions could be found. In any case, I think GreenC's suggestion of changing from a list to an article, using this and/or other definitions would be advisable. The exsiting names listed would have to be severely pruned, except where citations can be made. However, the problem here is that National poet already exists as a redirect to this list, so presumably we would have to find an admin to make the name change.--Smerus (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reference coincides with Virgil Nemoianu in linking national poets with ancient literature and romantic nationalism. I'd agree to move the article to National poet, as there isn't an article for the concept. If unsourced entries are removed from the article, they should be preserved either at the talk page or as a draft - so that editors are likely to found them and include them with adequate references in the future. Diego (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree.--Smerus (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as written the article constitutes a neologism being developed with original research. The phrasing National Poet has various meanings and we should not be redefining how the terminology is used to suit our perspectives. The National Poet of Wales for example is an annual honor. So the list is incomplete, and the definition provided improper for omitting accurate explication of what national poets are in many jurisdictions. The list omit lots of persons designated national poets and is simply an arbitrary of poets that may have been called national poets or something similar in some sources while excluding other poets and other sources that aren't consistent with the arbitrary definition (redefinition?) we've created. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the existing article Poet laureate does a better job of covering this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are several topics covered with the same name we use disambiguation, there's no reason to delete any of them; and the list being incomplete definitely falls out of the scope of this discussion - deletion is not cleanup. Methinks we could use the National poet page as a disambiguation within these two meanings and articles; I'll give it a try, until this discussion ends. Diego (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If the final discussion consensus is to keep, as seems likely, I suggest to move the article to National poet (Romanticism) so that all existing incoming links can be directed to that title without ambiguity. Diego (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just note: Poet laureate is quite a different topic to National poet. The former is an official, formal position (appointed in the UK by the monarch). The latter is a term which can be applied by anyone to anyone who shows some indications of 'nationality'. Don't confuse the two topics!--Smerus (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Poet laureate is quite a different topic to National poet." Says you. As noted above, National Poets in some jurisdictions are official, formal, appointed positions. The problem with this article is that it is trying to create a new definition (neologism)and then fit the world to that arbitrary and invented definition, excluding sources and examples that don't conform. Best to improve the existing article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a bit of logic here. It's not a case of 'says me', and there is no call for you to impute WP:OR to other editors - let me remind you of WP:AGF. As regards 'Poet Laureate' and 'National Poet' - if some As are Bs, it doesn't follow that all As are Bs, or that all Bs are As. In other words, they are indeed two quite separate topics.--Smerus (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it a "neologism", when the term has been used with essentially the same meaning since at least the seventeenth century? (And yes, there are national poets that were not Poet Laureates, and poet lauterates that were nothing like a National Poet - despite their official title including the pompous name). Diego (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew has proven the tern is used. Just need to find a reliable source for everyone on the list that calls them that, or discuss it on the talk page to see what should remain and what should go. Dream Focus 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 4, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LC is neither a policy nor a guideline. Instead it is just an essay which was created by Stifle himself. His !vote is therefore just saying, in effect, delete because I say so. No evidence or details is provided to support the claims of numbers 4, 7 and 10 and so they are the vaguest of waves. Andrew (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rubbish. It simply means the reasons I suggest deletion are those three points, which I have not retyped to save space. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am reminded of an old joke. Anyway, if we dereference these numbers, we have:

4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable

7. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category

10. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

Numbers 4 and 10 have been refuted already by reference to the substantial sources which discuss the concept and particulars of national poets in detail. For yet more examples, see:

Adam Mickiewicz: the national poet of Poland
The National Poet: The Emergence of a Concept in Hebrew Literary Criticism
Khushhal Khan—the national poet of the Afghans
The National Poet of Bangladesh
Mácha, the Czech National Poet
Taras Shevchenko: the National Poet of the Ukraine
'National Poets' in the Romantic Age: Emergence and Importance
Kalidasa: the national poet of India
The Artist as Nation‐Builder: William Butler Yeats and Chaim Nachman Bialik

The remaining point 7 seems a logical nonsense as, if the topic were original or unverifiable, then a category would not be wanted either. And, of course, our actual guideline states, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". So, we see that the numbers are just for show and all the !vote amounts to is a general dislike of lists. Andrew (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep The meaning may be slightly different from nation to nation, and individual to individual, but this is true of most subjects. It's nonetheless a unified subject aand appropriate for an article., 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contents (and definition in the lead) have to be checked and sourced on a case by case basis but there is no reason to delete the page as a whole. The concept of "national poet" was certainly not invented by the creator of this page. It is an old one. Anyone familiar with the status of Petőfi, Eminescu, Pushkin or Bialik in respectively Hungary, Roumania, Russia and Israel, just to mention a few examples, would have to know that. Such a page can be interesting to readers, because it gathers in one place facts about the literatures and cultures of smaller countries that it would otherwise be tedious to have to research on one's own, as long as as the contents are checked for accuracy and don't generate endless controversies. Contact Basemetal here 12:23, 30 January 2014 (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.