Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thomas Abbott

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The result was } Nomination withdrawn Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Abbott[edit]

Heyyyyyyyyyy, Abbott! Outside of winning the Newdigate Prize (a famous Oxford University award with plenty of less-than-famous winners), it doesn't appear that our subject has achieved any significant notability as a poet. A Google News search turns up nothing. This could be a case of WP:BIO woes. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True: Google news yields little that I can see. However, subject is listed as editing Oxford Poetry journal, and his book is well-cited with reviews etc. As winner of Newdigate Prize, our subject meets bio. notability criteria: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". All.labour.in.vain (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but where are the reviews? And where is media coverage that would confirm Mr. Abbott's notability as a contemporary poet? I am not of the opinion that winning a student writing award that is limited in scope to a single university is enough to justify inclusion here. I would state the Newdigate is famous for some (certainly not all) of the people who won it -- people are not famous for winning the Newdigate. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on Newdigate Prize's limitations are undoubtedly valid. However, they are not in line with Wikipedia's notability inclusion criteria. Perhaps we should seek a third opinion? Additional reviews and independent sources of notability I found (in two minutes on Google) are as follows:

Reading in Bodleian Library with Seamus Heaney, Mick Imlah, and Bernard O’Donoghue: http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/bodley/about/exhibitions/bodcasts#archipelago

Robert MacFarlane writing in the Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/14/featuresreviews.guardianreview1

http://deconstructivewasteland.blogspot.com/2008/06/review-paul-abbotts-flood.html

http://www.clutagpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=31

http://www.clutag-archipelago.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=5

http://sers018.sers.ox.ac.uk/about/exhibitions/bodcasts

http://buddhoblogosphere.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/

http://joty.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/

http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/tpr/issue3.pdf All.labour.in.vain (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that could be considered valid, as per WP:RS, is The Guardian -- and in that article, Mr. Abbott is mentioned in a fleeting round-up of writers who appear in a magazine. The other sources are insignificant blogs. No go, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In addition to the Guardian citation, the Bodleian reading and mp3 of Flood fits notability criteria, as per WP:NN. As does the mention at http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/tpr/issue3.pdf. These are in addition to http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/poetry-matters/june2008/abbott.html. Collectively, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, surely it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article? All.labour.in.vain (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sorry -- a podcast of a poetry reading and a PDF of a student magazine does not meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:N. And The Guardian cites Mr. Abbott in a single sentence as being one of a number of writers whose work appear in Archipelago -- he is not the subject of the article. And don't call me Shirley! :)Ecoleetage (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is only one piece of supporting evidence, amongst many. Also: you have twice used the word "student" in a derogatory manner. This seems unfair, as the student sources cited for this subject are still reliable, third-party, published sources, as per wiki criteria. Wikipedia is not an anti-student hierarchy, to my knowledge. The podcast of the poetry reading (which you dismiss as evidence of notability) in fact includes the Noble Laureate Seamus Heaney, and was held in the main auditorium of the Bodleian Library, on whose public website it is independently published. It conforms to the WP:RS standard of "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; [whose] authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In addition, and crucially, it is media coverage demonstrating the subject has notability as a contemporary poet. Taken with the other evidence, therefore, I repeat: this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Further, I cite WP:NN, where it says: "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity.'"

I accept that Abbott is not a major poet: this is true. But I think that Wikipedia ought to have a series of articles about the Clutag Press and its poets, which range from newbies like him to Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, and its other bigger names. This would be a valuable resource, would add to the history of contemporary poetry publishing in Oxford, and would be demonstrably notable, in line with WP:RS or WP:N. Clearly this is a niche subject, and only significant in its own sphere: but what's wrong with that? Any help you could give me researching and writing this series of articles would be greatly appreciated! :) All.labour.in.vain (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you talked me into it. Yes, I will do what I can to help in researching and writing these articles. Hit me up at my Talk Page or via e-mail and we will make it happen. And as a sign of good will, this AfD is withdrawn. Your labour was not in vain! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (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.