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 no consensus. Editors disagree about whether the amount and quality of recognition and coverage is sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  12:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taije Silverman[edit]

Taije Silverman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Lucas559 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 181.94.8.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the user talk page and the comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graig Weich and I'd encourage WP:AGF that Lit1979 is here to contribute positively.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the utmost respect for Agricola44, I disagree. One doesn't cite poetry, especially in other poetry ("Ere lo[1] our rocky sholes[2, 4:123],") and poetry is not humanities either -- the quality of journals/anthologies published in is more important than anything, except library holdings of books. I agree that 100 (three-digits) would be a good dividing line for notability on that, but it is in 96 libraries which is very close and with the journals is enough for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If poetry is not part of the humanities (in the broad sense), then I don't know what it is. And yes, I think that's why evaluation of humanities by journal publications has never caught on here. But, I do know that mere publication in journals is not enough (I think there's near universal agreement on this). Books are indeed the main currency of evaluation and we conventionally go by rules of thumb that DGG has articulated many times, roughly: at least 2 books by reputable publishers (especially including university presses like CUP or PUP, etc) and having "good" institutional holdings (which, admittedly is open to some interpretation, but which is generally considered at least triple digits). Agricola44 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I should also add that I'm personally acquainted with a Canadian poet who does have a Wikipedia article. He's won some larger awards -- arguably, since Canada has a much smaller population -- and more importantly, he's had a couple of books published which have been the subject of reviews. And this is what surprises me about Ms. Silverman's case: apparent absence of any significant independent published reviews. If anyone can track some down I would be happy to change my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is another review of her work that appears in the Shinning Rock Anthology. Critic is Eleanor Wilner, MacArthur Fellow, author of 7 books, pretty reputable I think. On the topic of anthologies, another one where Silverman has work published is the VCCA's Anthology.--Distancesarewhite (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, publications themselves do not render notability. There are selective science journals, policy journals, math journals, engineering journals, etc too, but it is their impact (per PROF c1) that matters, i.e. how they are "noted" by others referring thereto. Also, a peron's institution, even if Harvard, plays no role whatsoever in notability considerations. I would also quibble with you and DGG on another point. In this case, there isn't any meaningful difference between PROF and CREATIVE, since the currency of poetry is publication (unlike music, painting, sculpture, or some other areas) and since she is an academic. Your keep is based on a threshold level that is substantially lower than established convention. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
To the above, could you perhaps rephrase or clarify in another way your point about publications? To my ear, "publications themselves do not render notability" and "the currency of poetry is publication" sound a little contradictory? Personally, I find Silverman's work as a poet and translator (the latter of which seems to be largely dismissed in this discussion) exceptionally well published, particularly considering the high selectivity of the journals. Distancesarewhite (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not contradictory at all. In most intellectual areas, the currency is indeed some form of publication, e.g. journals in this case, in the sense that those are the academic "products" that everyone strives to produce. Publication merely shows that some particular editor or referee found a contribution to be acceptable. The WP threshold, however, is much higher. By longstanding convention, we require those products to further show that they have have been widely "noted" by peers or to have shown some other form of tangible "impact". Many studies have shown that most publications are never or hardly ever cited (see e.g. VanNoorden et al, 2014, Nature 514, 550-553 for a recent study pertaining to general science) – this is the segment that WP considers to be the "average academic" and which does not demonstrate notability. Consequently, the argument that someone like Silverman has published in a selective poetry journal is not a legitimate notability argument. The counter-argument is that poetry journals are hardly ever cited, which is true. But the counter-counter-argument is that that is the reason why we almost always evaluate this area according to institutional book holdings (another recognized sign of "impact"). My "delete" above was based primarily on the fact that the WolrdCat database shows that her book has fairly average holdings, according to our typical standards. Hope that clarifies my argument. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You seem to be judging her under WP:PROFESSOR, I argue that her publication record, accolades, and appointments qualify her under WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should be clear that appointment is entirely irrelevant. PROF or CREATIVE is semantic here. We all seem to agree that we're judging on publications and awards ("accolades" as you say). By our standards, the awards are obscure and the publications show average impact. Is there anything else that might give her a boost? Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I feel that you are misjudging her under academic rather than literary/poetry standards. You think that I, and User:Mscuthbert, User:Distancesarewhite are wrong. As there is some risk of slipping into WP:BLUDGEON, I suggest that we give other editors a chance weigh in, perhaps run their own searches, and assess Silverman's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is open – our further debate poses no barriers to other eds weighing in. Did you not just argue a short time ago that "her publication record, accolades, and appointments" demonstrate her notability? How is that judging on "literary/poetry standards"? You're trying to wedge a strawman into this discussion. The bottom line is this: what we basically have is a person who has a certain record of publications and awards (as is the case for most intellectuals, regardless of their discipline) and I argue that these do not rise to a level significantly above average so as to constitute notability. Conversely, you seem to be debating semantics of what notability guidelines to use. What concerns me further are the typical flags one sees in such cases: the person is very early-in-career (in this case a lecturer) and the article has lots of web ephemera passing as sources (like the WordPress blog billed as a formal review) and lots of PUFF (like a lecture/book signing being used as support for the claim of being a well-known poet). I think this reflects a misunderstanding of notability requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
She has an MFA, not a PhD. You seem not to understand the difference between a creative artist who teaches, and an early career scholar. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2016 (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.
More