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. Note: Well done on the article improvements, well done. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura McCullough[edit]

If you came here because of comments made on Facebook, 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)

Spam for non-notable minor poet; the sources are promotional junk. Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable poet, article mostly written by COI editor.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a lot of this is from here web page.[1] Although she wrote it, there's no indication that it is copyright free so at the moment it doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same reasons as nom: non-notable, as far as I can see, and also written by the subject. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, conflict of interest. Popcornduff (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all reasons above. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to WP:AFC, after removing copyvio. The article is definitely not acceptable in mainspace, but can be improved with the addition of citations to sources such as these: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This autobiography is being defended by the author by loudly proclaiming bias against women instead of coming here and doing the simple thing of providing reliable sources indicating notability. That would instantly make the article a keep. I assume from that behaviour that she doesn't have any such sources so I don't see the benefit of userfying. Instead she should come back and try again when she really is notable...or better still wait for someone neutral to write the article. SpinningSpark 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think any of the ones I provided above are any good? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I hadn't read your comments (other than the bolded userfy) when I made my post. My comment was based on the content of the article and the author's reaction at the help desk. The sources you found make my comments too strong, ~~and I would not object to userfying on the basis of them~~, but they are still marginal. Putting aside any issues of reliability, all of them except one are book reviews, which are fine for establishing the notability of books, but more is needed in an article about the author. The remaining source is an interview. I don't believe that interviews on their own are sufficient. An interview is not independent commentary on the subject, it is the subject talking about herself. In short, we still do not have independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. SpinningSpark 22:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking my assent to userfy. It has become quite clear from this user's behaviour that she couldn't do anything sensible with a userfied draft, and in any case she should not be writing her own article due to WP:COI and WP:AUTO concerns. I would not object to userfying to an established editor in good standing, but it is not appropriate to userfy to the original author. SpinningSpark 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if these these sudden new accounts making "keep" postings are a taste of this editor's future contributions, they display the opposite of the collaborative attitude needed in a Wikipedia editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no — this is not the subject socking, these are fans and friends coming here because he subject made an appeal for support on her Facebook page. Obviously, that's contrary to what we seek at AfD, but unless one is a Wikipedian, that's not a known fact. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my delete per Carrite's work on the article. Still not inclined to positively call for a keep though. SpinningSpark 04:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to WP:AFC Obviously a newby not familiar with policy. I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry in case there are any poetry fans who would have a better idea of how reliable those sources are and who could improve the article. Please give it a week to see if someone takes on the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy/AfC~~ It seems to me that the multiple independent reviews Anne Delong found in the Potomac Journal and the California Journal of Women Writers could potentially satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Both journals seem to have some system of editorial control. Although the original author's reaction has not been ideal, why can't we give her a chance at improving the article? Altamel (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Great work by Carrite in salvaging this article, though I concur with Cullen328 that the article should give outside views more weight. Altamel (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-- I'm not sure if it's kosher to add Amazon links as they could be seen as promotional, but it seems that the subjects Amazon page confirms some of the links that need additional sources. Everything on the page is factual. There is not even a shred of opinion in this article. As far as using "Non-notable" just seems like an ad-hominem argument against the subject. For students that use Wikipedia for research, she may be quite notable and relevant to them. — TownFunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:53, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]

KEEP-- though some people who are not poets say that Laura is irrelevant or non-notable, they are not involved in the writing industry. As a professor of English, an MFA student, and someone who IS involved with a number of writing organizations, Laura's contributions ARE important and noteworthy. Her ability to edit, publish, to connect to any reader is an accomplishment that not many have...especially not the people who say that she should be deleted. I don't believe they even understand what non-notable is...which would be me. A writer who only has one published national article and a few newspaper articles to her name. Keep her page and support the arts...especially women being published. Thank you! Sandra — 50.155.254.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP-- only people who are poets,poetry teachers or actively involved in the poetry world should be able to participate here. Laura may not be a major poet, but she certainly is a productive and well-known contributor as a minor poet. She belongs here. But this is a good example of why Wikipedia is shit. The public, especially an uninformed public, should not be allowed to vote on or contribute to biographies or other types of information that is supposedly being presented in a kind of encyclopedia. The people who are trying to delete her have no idea what they are talking about. — Phanahoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:26, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]

KEEP-- There is clearly no bias in this entry. The author, Laura McCullough, demonstrates through the list of publications and professional affiliations that she is a, for lack of a better descriptor, legitimate writer and accepted peer in the professional writing community. I can say with certainty that in light of Wikipedia's often dubious reputation for misinformation that to delete this entry would only further confirm that Wikipedia is a less than credible source. Wickedgoodpoet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedgoodpoet (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — Wickedgoodpoet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hmm. Very unsuspicious. Popcornduff (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you all read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry and reconsider your votes. Popcornduff (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a bunch of sock accounts, try reading our notability guideline which is our basic criteria for inclusion here. Telling other editors they don't know what they are talking about or can't contribute unless they are poets is unacceptable. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you are really not ok with that principle I don't know why you want to be here in the first place. SpinningSpark 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not apt to be sock accounts, but rather newcomers (fans and friends) who were canvassed here by the subjects request to chime in at Facebook. Obviously, little weight will be given to opinions on both sides of the question not backed by policy and canvassing is a party foul (albeit only a party foul of which Wikipedians are aware). Still, not socks. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or AfC If enough secondary sources can be supplied, then article can be recreated. For now though, not sufficiently notable. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 00:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-- Wikipedia is supposedly an amalgam of community contribution and all of the contributions on this page are factual, if there's an issue with citing sources then make it clear what you would like cited as opposed to deleting the page entirely. Laura McCullough is an immensely important writer in the poetry community and should not be dismissed because of the opinions of people who are not privy to the influence of her work; in particular, you'd be hindering the students that are and will be researching her work based on her presence in classrooms and the poetry community. To count it against her that she has brought it to the attention of her community that people who are not of note in said community are attempting to delete her Wikipedia entry is actually a citing of a major source that those calling for deletion are not privy to. Perhaps, instead of deletion, this community that has come here to respond to this deletion can rewrite the entry if that pleases the non-democratic board of people who are for the deletion of this entry. Ian Khadan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankhadan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Iankhadan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Incubate~~ Keep – Definite WP:POTENTIAL. Given the recent flurry of comments and the links provided by McCullough time is needed to work through the article. Also, McCullough has been given advice by other editors, which I assume she will take to heart. Learning about WP and the community should be her first priority. And then perhaps she can draft suggested or desired improvements to the article and post ((request edit)) on the article talk page for the changes she would like. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Carrite has done much to improve the article. With this in mind, I think Incubation is the best course of action. This would (or should) satisfy the various Facebook recruited editors who defend McCullough and would give Carrite more opportunity to develop the article. Moreover much of the delete commentary is no longer valid as COI and spammy issues have been/are being resolved by Carrite and others. 04:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) I'm back to Keep. Per WP:ANYBIO "The person ... has been nominated for [a well-known and significant award or honor] several times." In this case the criteria has been met and the article references the nominations. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – for those who are new to Wikipedia, the guideline we follow for poets & their notability is to be found at WP:CREATIVE. I recommend that they check the link and consider before posting here. – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability per nominator. Sarah 04:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I was asked to comment here by this woman and this woman's case is crap. This isn't LinkedIn, her page looks like that. We can't just all post our resumes on Wikipedia. FYI, Facebook is not a recruiting tool for your minions lady. Helgahoward (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Helgahoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment Canvassing on the persons Facebook page [10]. If someone can advise them about our rules on WP:CANVASS, that would be appreciated. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The works by the author, biographies of the author, etc., are not useful in asserting notability; what is ultimately required for inclusion is third-party coverage. All I see from the links provided by the subject of the article at the talk page are, at best, a handful of book reviews from sources that are questionable as reliable sources of secondary information. I do not believe that sufficient evidence of meeting WP:GNG has been presented or is available. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a slam-dunk deletion and I urge people to do the due diligence of a search. This actually passes GNG. HERE is an interview with McCullough from the California Journal of Women Writers. And then there is THIS interview with Nanofiction. THIS may be a blog post, but it would certainly be helpful in the sourcing out of a NPOV article. I believe THIS from Poets and Artists does count to GNG. THIS from Baltimore Review might fall under the umbrella of self-sourcing, but it's a plausibly close call. This is clearly a serious, published, and esteemed poet who meets our guidelines for general notability as the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage. The fact that the article in its current state is terrible is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrible" BLP articles shouldn't be in mainspace, even if the subject is notable. That's why I suggested userfication. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article improvement workshop or the quality control department, this is just where we decide whether a topic is sufficiently notable according to WP rules for an article to be constructed. Fixing the hundreds of thousands of crap articles is part of the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I visited McCullough's page to see the nature of her appeal for intervention here. I wasn't able to post to tell her that this was counterproductive to the cause of coming up with a neutral interpretation of the nomination in light of our notability rules. Fortunately, it turns out that she did do the one important thing, to list up third-party coverage for consideration. Here is her list:

Reviews

Interviews

My view is that this — together with what Anne DeLong and I have listed above — is sufficient for a GNG pass... Carrite (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this ends Keep, I promise to rewrite it to get it up to our standards. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over approach. This article is too tainted. Delete it and rewrite it without the CoI problems. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's more or less what I mean. I need to go work on my deck for a couple hours, I'll come work on this for an hour or two when I'm done or it gets too hot... I have attempted to make email contact with the subject to help me make sure I get the basic details right. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrites sources and the fact that he's ~~gonna rewrite~~ improved it alot - I hate to see articles like this get deleted so I say give it another chance. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've worked it over and the COI complaint is no longer valid. Those who opined "Userfy" are urged to weigh in again up or down. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I cannot see any legitimate argument for deleting this article. The information presented is factual and sourced. Restatement of facts presented elsewhere is not a copyright violation -- one cannot copyright facts. All material quoted is indicated as such, and the source is provided. Arguments that McCullough is not notable seem laughable for some one who knows the publishing industry in general and poetry specifically. Publication in "Guernica," "Georgia Review" and "American Poetry Review," for example, suggest some significant recognition of her talent. Likewise, publication of several chapbooks and full-length collections of poetry likewise suggestions significant recognition of her talent. The failure of the naysayers here to recognize the presses more likely reflects their lack of familiarity with the many small presses that keeps the poetic tradition alive. Sincerely, David M. Lawrence (journalist, author of two books, and former board member of James River Writers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbyssWriter (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry notability standards – Editors are invited to look at the standards listed here: WP:POETRYSTANDARDS. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just going to add my two cents, totally new to editing or commenting on a page so please excuse my informal placement. This page should be kept, not only is Laura McCullough an accomplished poet but who's page is objective and informative. There is a good amount of references users I refer you to prove the importance of keeping the page of a excellent poet and teacher of which I am a former student. 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)DNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAPRCBCC (talk • contribs) — SAPRCBCC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep due to overhaul by Carrite. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work by Carrite, new version passes WP:CREATIVE ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 08:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and improved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's inception may be tainted, and can discount the sockpuppet/meatpuppet KEEP !votes (curiously all in solid caps), but nonetheless WorldCat reveals 6 works in 233 libraries worldwide, and as has been mentioned Carrite is giving the article a good overhaul and adequate attention to make it retainable. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent improvements by Carrite and others (thanks to all) convince me that she is a notable poet, and that the article should stay. I would like to see more quotes by literary critics, and a little less by McCullough herself. This would eliminate the remaining promotional tone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My train got delayed so apologies for arriving very late here. Looking at the present version of the article[11] (and nothing in the history), the article is quite fine, it meets our WP:NPOV policy and notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable published author -- how can there be any argument for deletion? SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 11 August 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.