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. The form does not appear to be sufficiently established for an article.The only "keep" arguments are from a couple of special-purpose accounts (who were also responsible for the unsigned comments), and they do not provide convincing evidence of Independent Reliable Coverage. MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherita[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Found this article whilst working through the underlinked backlog. Created in 2014, its subject is a form of poetry purportedly derived from haiku that is so obscure it doesn't appear at all in a Google Books search. Most of the references cited in the article are bunk like self-published books and Tripod.com userpages (remember those?) but there is apparently one good source -- a brief mention in Frogpond, the journal of the Haiku Society of America. Additionally, the first three paras of the article are copy/pasted from one of its dubious references.

I will happily withdraw the nom if good sources can be found -- I had enough MFA student friends at university to know that poets have it tough all over. But as it stands there just doesn't seem to be enough meat here to pass WP:GNG. A Train^talk 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with a lot of recent references.

There has been a lot of activity in Atlas Poetica and Bright Stars, along with a number of books of Cherita. I'll see if I can dig out some more books and add them over the next few weeks. Thanks for being so polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — GrahamJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete virtually everything I see as added references refer to this form being "created in 1997 by American poet Ai Li." I daresay WP:NOTMADEUP applies. Not notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The form was part of a series of different genres developed out of Tanka and Haiku over several years and is now accepted by major Tanka journals with many different writers. If I follow your argument then all forms developed out of the haiku and tanka roots such as Haibun should be removed as WP:NOTMADEUP applies to Matsuo Bashō when he invented the form in a letter to his disciple Kyorai. That appears to be the logical conclusion of your analysis of a form now written by many different authors around the global.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More generally, cherita is a subset of micropoetry, a phenomenon that has gain popularity with the emergence of microblogging sites in the 21st century. Both 'micropoetry' and 'microblogging' have pages of their own on Wikipedia.Soaphollow (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Soaphollow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a linguistic issue, but I cannot find instances of this new poetic form discussed in truly unaffiliated, non-user generated reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Frog Pond, Atlas Poetica and Bright Starts (for example) have no affiliation to the authors who published Cherita in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to prove that the poetry form is popular. And this requires significant coverage. Poetry forms are invented daily. What sets a poetry form apart from the others is if it has been adopted by others and reliable sources are talking about it. At the moment, I don't see significant coverage. A brief mention in Frog Pond is all I can see - and the rest seems to be references linked to one particular poet which I doubt are independent and secondary. Previous AfDs on made-up poetic forms have resulted in deletions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaiyaathathu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liwuli. At the moment, I don't see enough about the poetry form to keep this article. I'm also concerned that keeping articles like these in Wikipedia is possibly an attempt to increase the usage of these forms; WP:NOTPROMO applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Surely independent poetry festivals count? The New Hampshire Poetry Festival made this their featured form last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get to !vote twice. One per customer. Striking through your second one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for that festival, the Folded Word blog has a link about that panel -- and a link to "the inventor's website," here. Doesn't sway me, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about the fact that it has been featured in The Philadelphia Inquirer, you have authors promoting it in India, and supporters in Sweden and the UK ? It has been used for teaching in schools in the UK, a Cherita has even been a winner the Japanese Tanabata poetry festival. It is great to see this form having worldwide interest, as is anything that helps a wider audience find an interest in micro poetry, be it Haiku, Tanka, Haibun or any of the related forms. Whatever we can do to spark creativity and discussion in an oft overlooked genre - poetry - must be a good thing, as we often discount the importance of literacy in a modern abbreviated world where AT prevent us :| at the 411 - :-). GrahamJB (talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - In general, for stuff like these we require significant secondary coverage. Poetry forms, like scientific inventions are created daily. We don't include a scienctific invention on Wikipedia till multiple people talk about it and analyse it. For this poetry form, I don't see any references in scholarly literature. Simply being used in a festival is a proof that it exists, not that it is notable. Someone needs to do a detailed study on the poetry form itself, maybe a peer-reviewed journal paper or a PhD thesis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you mean scholarly literature like these links from the Chertia page A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal ? If these are not scholarly, please can clarify your definition of scholarly? In fact I believe that either of these would be applicable for a PhD thesis. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In general, scholarly literature refers to peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity). The coverage also has to be significant coverage: for example several pages focusing solely on "Cherita" is required. The coverage at A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal is restricted to a few lines at best which literally doesn't tell much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The foremost Tanka journals (and many Haiku journals) have written about/ featured/ accept Cherita, so I have to disagree strongly with you there. I think you also insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity - they would be strongly offended by that accusation. I am sorry if you are not involved in the worldwide societies and journals that promote Haiku, Tanka, Haibun and the related forms and so may not have recognised them. How many Haiku and Tanka societies are you a member of, or have you been actively involved in?. Unfortunately poetry is not like ieee (if you are a member of that, as I once was) with huge worldwide grants, membership fees, and a single worldwide organisation - poets do not in general have an overabundance of funds and are more independent - but I have shown clear evidence of worldwide peer review by independent editors and publishers, and demonstrated that significant numbers of the print and online outlets for this type work have promoted the Cherita. I do accept that it is a smaller community than say, the membership of the ieee, but percentage wise, the impact has been significant.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When on earth did Lemongirl942 "insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity?" She's been far more patient than I would have been. I caution GrahamJB here that this is the sort of WP:Drama and unfounded accusations that we have little patience for, here. And if I see more of it, I won't hesitate to start issuing user warnings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote - 'peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity)'. The journals already mentioned are some of the leading tanks and haiku journals across the world - as is self evident to any SME- this is therefore answered unless you are arguing they have a lack of integrity. Stop arguing something already demonstrated as false. The only basis you can therefore be arguing - in your words - for not doing this - is on their lack of 'publishing integrity'.(talk)
Comment I just found this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive_12#Cherita.2Fwikilink. Seems like others agreed that it was WP:MADEUP way back in 2009 as well when our standards were much lower. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you feel we did not have a proper debate at that time. The Cherita came out of a collaboration of leading poets in their genre from around the world over several years. It is plainly not made up in a pub quiz or a weekend, but was part of a long collaborative exploration of forms - as I can see from reading the sources - and BTW - I am not the creator, only the poster of a form that had been internationally written since 1997.(talk)

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.