Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cumming

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cumming[edit]

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

Uncontested prod deleted, then restored on request (User_talk:GB_fan#deleting_Tim_Cumming_wiki_page); I have no problem discussing this here. So, to reiterate: biography (likely, WP:AUTOBIO) of a British poet. As written, fails WP:ARTIST requirement for inclusion in our project. The only reference is to a publisher website. Author/subject makes numerous claims of notability, but has not provided any citations to back his claim. Google search by me failed to locate any significant treatment of a subject other than short biographies on pages of the publisher and minor cultural institutions. Google Books confirms he has published several books but I am not seeing any discussion of him as a subject. I am open to anyone finding and presenting sources that will show he passes notability - it would be nice to save this entry, but, as written right now, it does not pass, and I am unable to locate any sources to rescue it myself. PS. The subject has added more references the the article, comments about their quality would be appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't honestly think it's worth sorting through the puffery to determine how much of it is total promotion and how much is valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC: Citations added include reviews from Magma and (in Salt Authors page) from Poetry London, two major UK poetry journals. Reliable and independent. Plus retrieved Evening Standard full-page review of Hawkwind Do Not Panic by Pete Clark, from 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.29 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll ping User:DGG, maybe he can offer some help. I am not familiar with what constitutes a reliable source in poetry reviews outside mainstream press and academic journals, neither of which seem present (some of the subject's work did appear in the mainstream press, but as a primary source; and not every journalist who writes for The Guardian or BBC is notable, neither). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC: In terms of contemporary poetry, Magma and Poetry London are, for the UK, two of the leading mainstream journals, alongside PN Review and Poetry Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.29 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete Probably Not yet notable. Is there evidence for the importance of Magma poetry ? The review is by a poet even less well known than Cumming. We normally judge poets and short story writers who do not produce works as extensive as books by inclusion in major anthologies--his work has been in some minor ones. His own books are in almost no libraries. His video on Harkwind for BBC has not gotten significant distribution & is not included in our article on them. . He conducts a BBC series of interview/discussions, but we have consistently said such are not notable unless they receive major notice. His paintings have received no notice except by himself on his own program. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you're quite wrong there is whole paragraph about the hawkwind film for the BBC in the wiki hawkwind entry. It is not widely distributed because it has not been released as a DVD, but I was told by the BBC music dept that it gained the highest audience rating for a BBC4 music doco on first showing in 2007. As for anthologies, Identity Parade, in which I have six poems, was the first major new anthology of British and irish poetry since the early 1990s, and the same publisher, Bloodaxe's, The New Poetry. Also published in three editions of The Forward Book of Poetry, the UK's annual anthology of the best of the year's poems, including the Poems of the Decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.197.76 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy echo User:DGG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many new refs have been added by the subject: [1]. I am afraid, however, that they still seem to fail the mainstream / independent / mentioning in more then passing requirement. Perhaps a poetry expert would like to comment, particularly on "Magma and Poetry London are, for the UK, two of the leading mainstream journals, alongside PN Review and Poetry Review" statement? This discussion was already listed on the "list of Poetry-related deletion discussion", although I don't know if this project is active enough to monitor this list...? I'll go and leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 11 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.