Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Spott

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Spott[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)

Non-notable author. Fails GNG. No significant secondary sources. Seaweed (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found trivial mentions or primary sources of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while I think a reliable assessment can be made that this author and this entry might be of value to locals, or the hundreds of their readers/students over the years; the lack of in depth coverage doesn’t meet SIGCOV, and neither can that threshold be met through the numerous minor other references we have here

It follows that this entry does not meet the present wording of GNG or an SNG. Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the sourcing in the article is currently very bad. However, a search shows that Verity Spott's poetry has been analyzed and critiqued in the New York Times, critiqued in The Chicago Review (link), critiqued in Cordite Poetry Review, interviewed in The Badger (link), published in Granta (link), discussed and critiqued multiple times by The Poetry Foundation (link 1, link 2), reprinted in the influential new anthology 100 Queer Poems (where Spott is called a "modern, innovative voice"), discussed negatively in the book Wound Building: Dispatches from the Latest Disasters in UK Poetry, discussed in the book Spoken Word in the UK, discussed in the book A Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Poetry, 1960 - 2015, discussed and critiqued in the book Poetry and Work: Work in Modern and Contemporary Anglophone Poetry, critiqued and discussed in the book The Neurotic Turn, and mentioned in the book The New Feminist Literary Studies. Plus those are merely the citations and info I found in a quick search, there are many more out there. In short, there are easily enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SouthernNights Jack4576 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your striking of your previous vote shows that you did not actually look for SIGCOV online carefully (if you actually searched). This is not the only time you ignored online sources or suggested "keep" by saying "no one explained in terms of online SIGCOV". Please make valid justifications next time. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I (mistakenly) assumed good faith that Seaweed had fulfilled WP:BEFORE, as Tutwakhamoe appeared to have in good faith obtained the same. Hence my delete vote.

Won't make that mistake again in future, don't worry. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my carelessness. Admittedly I wasn't familiar with the Creative professionals section of WP:BIO, and I was too focused on finding sources that can prove the claims about Spott's life (birth place, degrees in University, the claim that her works have been translated into multiple languages, etc.)

I've removed the originally inadequate sources and rewrote the first half of the article with some of the sources above. I'll care more care in my future searches for sources, especially for BLP. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the sources brought by SouthernNights, this poet clearly meets Creative professionals and WP:GNG. I've added a new section to the article "Reception" and added two reviews of her work, and one book reference (that critiques her work on multiple pages) + citations for those publications. Doing a WP:BEFORE search is not required, but is strongly considered best practices (and is pretty much expected in AfD discussions). Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:CREATIVE as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am also finding more at the WP Library, e.g. "Contemporary trans, queer poetics – including writing by Jay Bernard, Verity Spott and Laurel Uziell – has been engaged in animating and giving voice to archives, historical figures and events, creatively representing hirstories in a manner informed by present-day struggles against racism, xenophobia and transphobia and regimes of austerity and state violence." Raha, Nat; Baars, Grietje (2021). "'The Place of the Transfagbidyke is in the Revolution'". Third Text. 35. doi:10.1080/09528822.2020.1864950.; discussion of their work in Freedman, Lucy (2018). "A 'Beautiful half hour of being a mere woman': The Feminist Subject and Temporary Solidarity". Historical Materialism. 26 (2).; and Spott is noted: "In the UK, trans authors have also found creative expression in forms other than fiction, including the poetry of Jay Bernard, Nat Raha and Verity Spott, among others." by Juliet Jacques in "GENDER GENRES: On the emergence of transgender literature.", Frieze May2019, Issue 203, p22. I have not yet checked ProQuest. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC) - quote from source fixed Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2023 (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.