Talk:Seth Abramson/Archive 1

This "Seth Abramson" article is a vanity autobiography. He has obviously written it himself to promote his minor work. There are thousands of "poets" published in thousands of tiny magazines no one reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipLevine (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article references a dozen publications which are themselves Wikipedia entries, making the "tiny magazines no one reads" comment above a bizarre one in this context. The history page for this article makes clear that it was not written by its subject, so that observation too is nonsense. It appears this user has only come on Wikipedia for the purpose of vandalizing this page, as this user has made no other contributions whatsoever to Wikipedia. Additional attempts at vandalism should be dealt with as such. And incidentally, Boston Review alone has a circulation of over 20,000; the total circulation of the dozens of journals referenced here (which are in many instances prominent in the field) is probably approaching if not over 200,000, not to mention the annual traffic of the subject's blog (there's a link to the stats in the article) being just shy of 100,000 visitors. In the field of poetry this is significant.Burks88 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say trim out most of the fluff: the obscure credits in little magazines and the blogs. What's left is small, but non-zero. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article clearly does not met Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines for creative professionals. Subject is not cited by his peers or regarded as an important figure, and subject's book hasn't even come out yet, much less become a significant monument. As a frame of reference, only four of the last ten winners of the Yale Younger Poets Competition, the most prestigious young poet award extant, have pages at all, and none are half as long as this. Subject's publication credits are extensive but not remarkably so. If such a record makes him noteworthy, then thousands of other minor American poets, living and dead, could make the same argument. It reads like a vanity entry. 76.254.26.125 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the same thing was said by the exact same IP address a couple of weeks ago (accompanied by an attempt to "blank" this entry, which was deemed vandalism by another Wikipedia editor), all of which led to an AfD debate--a debate that resulted in a unanimous "Keep." More importantly, the fact that far too few poets are acknowledged by Wikipedia is by no means an argument for removing those that are--in fact, it suggests that not only must current entries be protected, but significantly more entries should be written. This entry (at link 9) indicates that the number of unique visitors to the subject's MFA blog was, just in March 2008 (i.e. last month), a hair shy of 70,000. That makes the "not regarded as an important figure" comment erroneous, especially as the subject appears to be co-authoring the only major book on the topic with which the blog is concerned (i.e. MFA in CW admissions processes) available in the United States, and that 70,000/month figure represents approximately three times the total number of working poets in America today (estimated recently by Ron Silliman, the top blogger in this field, as being about 20,000). The "significant monument" test seems to have been derived wholesale, just this moment, by the IP address above--for every YYP-winning poet not listed on Wikipedia, there are 20 poets of a stature similar to this poet who are. If the standard were that the subject had written a book that was a "significant monument" in literature, the number of well-published poets represented on Wikipedia right now would be even more dismal than it is. Moreover, the "not cited by his peers" comment flies in the face of the entry itself, which shows that the subject has been interviewed (most recently by Inside Higher Ed) on the subject of MFA programs; a Google search apparently turns up additional interviews and countless references by peers. For a 30 y.o. poet to have published as extensively as the subject of this entry is indeed remarkable, particularly as the journal publications listed here are mainly Wikipedia entries themselves (inherently suggesting the notability of these publications) and one of the two book publications is out-of-genre (suggesting a broader audience than merely the poetry-reading one). The length of the entry is immaterial; if every entry in Wikipedia were as thorough as this one, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. It would seem that the IP address above should get started on adding entries for the remaining six YYP-winning poets referenced in his/her comment, not crusading to remove a poet clearly at the level (publishing- and notoriety-wise) of countless other contemporary poets aged 24-35 and listed on Wikipedia. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I never blanked the entry. That may have been another user. I believe I suggested it for deletion, admittedly via the improper procedure, for which I apologize. But other users have suggested deletion, and still others have suggested this article be trimmed, so if there is a crusade, I am certainly not the one waging it. The "significant monument" criterion was not my creation, but rather is quoted directly from Wikipedia:Notability (people), under the criteria regarding creative professionals. The subject has published widely and doubtlessly has a promising career and future; however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of contemporary poets, and citing other possibly non-notable poets who have pages is not a justification for this article's existence or length. The MFA blog in question was not started by the subject, and he is merely one of 19 listed "contributors," so citing its traffic as establishing his notability is highly suspect. In fact, another author started the blog and wrote the first (and only, at present time, according to Amazon) edition of the MFA book, so to attribute both of them to subject is disingenuous at best. The criteria for notability of creative professionals exist, and subject rather clearly does not meet them. The tone and length of the article itself, as well as the tone and vehemence of the commenter above, continue to suggest a vanity entry.(76.254.26.125 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Given how many Wikipedia editors have worked on and approved of this entry, and the fact that it was not written by its subject (as the above consistently attempts to intimate), it's not clear what the vehemence of a single Wikipedia commentator has to do with anything. Of more concern are single-purpose WP accounts, sock-puppet accounts, and anonymous editors, particularly if they target a single article for deletion, even after a unanimous-Keep AfD. On a separate note, the comments above are again erroneous--the 70,000/month figure is for the subject's personal blog, not the MFA blog (the latter of which is run by Tom Kealey, another WP entry, and the co-author of the Creative Writing MFA Handbook with the instant subject). It certainly cannot be argued that there are more than a handful (at most) of American poets whose personal blogs are on pace to get well over half a million unique visitors in this calendar year. And as to the co-authorship, its significance could easily be determined via any sort of research into the subject--both the subject of the entry, as well as the subject of MFA admissions generally. Again, the argument of Anonymous, above, seems to boil down to this: there are others even more deserving than this subject for WP inclusion. We agree on that. So those other entries should be written, and ASAP. Which says absolutely nothing about the status of this article post-AfD. It should also be noted that this entry was vetted for "neutral tone" months ago, and that tag was removed after the article was heavily edited by multiple sources. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kealey's entry is an odd justification for this one, considering that it's currently tagged as having dubious notability. And accusations of anonymous sock puppets are similarly odd, considering that all of your (signed, at least) contributions regard this page in particular, and that there exist on Kealey's talk page numerous unsigned posts in defense of its notability with a remarkably similar tone to yours. It seems that you, fellow anonymous user, are inordinately concerned with pleading the notability of this subject, directly and by extension. So I think there should be no stones thrown here. But regardless of that, and regardless of your misrepresentation of my argument, my point is an impersonal one. It is exactly this: there are clear and simple criteria for notability of creative professionals on Wikipedia. This subject meets none of them. (Blog traffic, incidentally, is not one, nor should it be. I'd hope the literary world does not rank its poets by the popularity of their blogs.) I'm the second user to suggest deletion, and others have suggested extensive cutting. I reiterate: this is an encyclopedia, not a directory of young poets, nor a directory of your friends, nor a forum for your vanity, as the case may be. (I continue to surmise the latter.) The criteria are few and simple and clear. None of your arguments thus far have addressed them.(76.254.26.125 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Kealey's entry is not a "justification" for this one, and mentioning it doesn't make it so; likewise, mentioning that it's been tagged, possibly by you, doesn't make it any less a WP entry. You've made numerous intimations here that I won't respond to, except to say that when I sign my posts it is under an account with which I've made numerous contributions to WP other than this entry's discussion page (and am still a little mystified as to how you'd claim to know otherwise, but that's neither here nor there). There is no "pleading" here, Anonymous: the history of this page shows more than a dozen editors, an originator that is not the subject, and an AfD debate which--in voting by three editors previously unassociated with the page--resulted in a unanimous "Keep." I respond to your comments merely because a person who's attempted to speedy-delete a page pre-AfD (getting immediately vetoed by a fourth WP editor) would probably have no qualms about attempting it post-AfD, too. But my argument is clear and consistent: a poet of this age, with the publications cited (two books, editorship of a journal, more than sixty journal publications [many of them WP entries themselves], an internet presence of significant popularity, and so on) meets the notability requirement for WP, whether or not you feel it's the best exemplar of notability on WP (and let's be clear, I haven't claimed it is, either). Your YYP-based argument was specious, and you're aware of this--it was a misstatement of both the letter as well as the spirit of the notability guidelines (as it implied that if not all the YYP winners are on WP, they're not all notable, which means anyone who hasn't won the YYP isn't notable; it's pretzel-logic). As to trying to trace the several million WP users based on "tone," I'd simply note that you and I have the same writing style and, to my ear, tone. Are we the same person, trying to stir up controversy needlessly? Only clairvoyants such as yourself could say. But I've stated my points clearly and unambiguously, have tried to get you to refrain from misquoting/mis-describing the entry and its history, and you just happen to disagree with me. Which you're more than entitled to do, of course. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The unanimous "keep" was weak and based on a request for significant shortening. Most Pulitzer prize winners don't even have an article near as long as this. --Agrofe (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agrofe, I agree the article needs trimming--I think the concern is that those who want this entry deleted will use the opportunity to "trim" the article to actually "gut" it, thereby justifying additional attempts at deletion in the future. I.e., editors are supposed to be editing in good faith (to improve rather than destroy an article), and if the end-game of shortening the entry is to then come back and say there isn't enough substance to keep it, that's contrary to WP guidelines. All of which is to say, there's a reason that WP does not have a policy to the effect that "a short article is a better article"--the standard, instead, is simply that the article be accurate and notable, lest we find ourselves in a sort of "negative inducement" cycle whereby editors who lose an AfD can gut an article to then claim, tautologically, that the article now has no guts at all. My own suggestion would be to shorten but not remove the two blog-related paragraphs--the notability of the blogs seems to be beyond question, given their one-of-a-kind nature and massive readership (1,500+/day in the poetry community is notable, and the other blog received as many as 25,000 visitors/day and was covered by national print, radio, and internet media)--and to move the less well-known publications (i.e. any of the publications which are not themselves WP entries) to the "See Also" section of the article. Again, though, the observation about Pulitzer Prize winners, while true, is not a justification for gutting an entry; it's an exhortation to improve other entries. WP is not a race to the bottom; its editing policies are conceptually constructive, not destructive. This entry is bloated but contains ample substance establishing notability. Any editing should reflect that post-AfD determination. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's now more text on the discussion page than in the article! Step one is to strip out all the references that are not to blogs (per WP:RS) or to primary sources (per WP:NOR -- e.g., that statcounter link needs to go) and see what remains. Is there any coverage of the subject that is not on a blog, for example, but in an edited, secondary source such as a newspaper, book, so forth? If so, we need to work from that; if not, it needs to go. That's a pretty easy trim to do, and I suggest 76.254.26.125 and Agrofe begin there. 128.135.70.245 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The editing is a good idea (though I think you meant to say "strip out all the references that are to blogs" [i.e. you added a "not" by mistake]) but assigning the task to two editors who've already said they want the entire entry deleted would definitionally be a violation of WP policy, as good faith can't be ensured. Someone who voted for the entry to be kept, or a neutral party, should do it, or else I will--because I'm not on record as wanting to destroy the entry, but make edits consistent with the AfD vote. Finally, I continue to not quite understand why questions are repeatedly asked about this entry which are answered directly in the entry itself. That suggests the critics haven't read the entry fully. For instance: "Is there any coverage of the subject that is not on a blog...?" It seems to me that the entire last section of the blog ("See Also") answers that question (an interview by Inside Higher Ed, itself a WP-entry media outlet, comes to mind, as it's right on top) as well as the cites within the entry proper that indicate the many sources that have cited the subject. Deleting any reference to blogs--I don't mean cites now, but in-text references to the subject's two blogs--would first of all be improper (if the fact of the blogs' existence is notable they would stay, and have nothing to do with WP:RS), and also runs the risk of removing exactly the sort of references to the subject whose alleged absence will ultimately be the basis for additional requests to delete. So if a blog receiving 25,000+ visitors/day is cited by a nationally-broadcast radio program, and we delete the reference to the blog, and then also to the radio program that mentioned the blog repeatedly, can we honestly then ask questions like "Is there any coverage of the subject...?" That's nonsensical. Moving such references into the final section of the blog does make sense however (i.e. out of the text proper, and into the "See Also" section or a "References in the Media" section) and I'm happy to do that, in addition to the other substantial edits I proposed above. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is very strict on blogs (and any other self-published source), especially when it comes to biographies (see WP:BLP.) If a fact cannot be established by a reliable source (generally, a third party, edited source), it should generally not appear -- truth is not the issue, WP:V and WP:NOR are. Listing things in "see also" is not useful; the information needs to be integrated into the text; see WP:EL for guidelines on the limited things that should appear. As for not wanting others to edit the page: WP:AGF and complain only when rules are broken. 128.135.70.245 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We're in absolute agreement here as to what WP policies state. I agree blogs cannot be cited as sources, unless the subject is himself the author of the source (for instance, a WP article on Donald Trump might cite to his own website for facts about his background, provided he authors or sponsors the site). The rule you're quoting limits blog citation for biographies, and wisely so, because of the dangers of libel and defamation. We agree, too, that "See Also" is entirely unhelpful; in contrast, a reference section including selected references to the source in print, internet, and radio media is not just useful but necessary, as it wouldn't do to write an entry which simply flits from referencing one interview or newspaper article to another in the main text. That would be unreadable. Nor would it do to not have any such section whatsoever, when a repeated question being asked of the article is, "Is there any coverage of the subject that is not on a blog?" Finally, the StatCounter link is apparently from a public link on the subject's website; therefore, it is not original research, it is publicly available information compiled and hosted by a known and trusted corporate source. I think the StatCounter information is useful, given that--as already seen in the conversation above--one critic of the entry didn't realize that the subject's personal webspace (not one he edits or contributes to as part of a group) received 70,000 unique visitors in just the last 30 days, establishing notability as a blogger in addition to the existing notability as a poet. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't write the article "defensively"; report the facts about the subject contained in good secondary sources (e.g., not statcounter, but an article discussing it) and leave it at that. Good luck. Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo, I actually had edited the StatCounter reference out, because it seemed unnecessary. I was just clarifying the "publicness" of the link I'd removed, and noting that the information seemed useful to me (if not, I suppose, necessary). Ultimately I think the subject's singular involvement in the first-ever MFA ranking process is evident by the fact that he's co-authoring the only book on the subject. The entry as it stands now is much shorter than it was before, but still contains all the facts about the subject contained in good secondary sources. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: I am the same user as 76.254.26.125) A few factual clarifications: US News and World Report ranked MFA programs in 1997, so subject absolutely did not perform "the first-ever ranking process" of MFA programs, and, as was previously mentioned, subject is in fact only a contributing author (subject is not listed as co-author on Amazon or the publisher's website) of the second edition of the MFA book -- the original was entirely the brainchild and work of another person. To reiterate yet again, subject clearly and obviously does not qualify as a notable poet (i.e., a creative professional) under WP:Notability (people). I strongly suggest both the above commenter and any editors involved in the evaluation of this article read (or re-read) those criteria. The commenter above continues to attempt to define ad hoc criteria by which subject is notable as a poet: blog traffic, number of journal publications, editorship of a journal subject himself co-created (and therefore may have appointed himself as editor of), and age, none of which are relevant to WP guidelines for notability of creative professionals. In fact the WP criteria are clear and established, and subject simply does not meet them as a creative professional. Such obscure facts as placing a manuscript as a semifinalist in a second-tier poetry prize and publishing in minor journals such as Copper Nickel are essentially trivia, not encyclopedia content, and further are so insignificant as to make one question whether anybody other than the subject himself could or would have included them. The fact of the matter is that subject does not at present time even yet have a book in print. Since the primary argument presented thus far for subject's notability is blog traffic, subject should be included in WP as a blogger, if at all. I am unfamiliar with WP's notability criteria for bloggers and unsure whether they exist (and not inclined to research them), so I'll leave that discussion to others.(76.254.28.171 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I believe in trying very hard to uphold WP:AGF. But it's not easy, given the gross misstatement of the first two sentences of the above comment, which seem to insinuate (a new tactic in the quest to destroy this entry) that the entry is inaccurate/misleading. In fact, as would only have taken three minutes to confirm, the previous iteration of this WP entry explicitly stated--with more cites for the proposition than nearly any other entry for a poet on WP has in total--that The Suburban Ecstasies was the first to rank MFA programs since that was done by U.S. News & World Report in 1997 (the entry then linked to those latter rankings). To the extent the TSE rankings were the first-ever comprehensive rankings, that was actually an understatement, as the '97 rankings measured one element ("reputation among MFA faculties") and the TSE rankings more than 15. The subject in question is literally the sole author of the rankings presently used by MFA applicants, and those rankings will be featured (along with much else by the subject) in the forthcoming second edition of the Creative Writing MFA Handbook. But leaving that aside, the claims made above are startling: for instance, that journal publication is irrelevant to a poet's notability, and having founded a literary enterprise is likewise irrelevent, and that (as the premise seems to go) this entry should be erased now and then reinstituted in a few months, when the subject's two books have been released (as we've not heard from the anonymous critics that two books wouldn't establish notability, simply that the books are shortly to be released, but have not yet been). That too is nonsensical. It is tough to uphold WP:AGF when the subject of this WP entry has published in more than a dozen journals that are already classified as indisputably notable by WP, and then the user above picks out one of the least recognizable journals of the sixty listed in the entry and says that the entry depends on "publishing in minor journals such as Copper Nickel..." To the extent the above critic believes notability for this subject will have to depend on blog traffic comparisons (already a dismissal of countless more weighty and already-established-in-this-entry criteria), I'd encourage the critic to find another single-author blog in this entire field (poetry, or even creative writing generally) that receives 70,000 visitors/month. The only possibility would be Ron Silliman, another WP entry. In any event, to repeat again (and to be clear, again, that no ad hoc criteria have ever been cited by me): two books, citations for a third, more than sixty publications in top journals, founding/editorship of a journal, countless references in media (most recently by The Los Angeles Times) and five-figure Google hits for the subject's name (this latter being a criterion frequently used on WP poet-related debates), one of the highest-traffic blogs in an entire field, and other miscellanous background facts about the subject (was a radio commentator for a nationally-syndicated network, has been nominated for multiple awards for blogging, authored a blog cited as instrumental by the Democratic Party to a historical event in 2004) more than establish notability. It is also worth noting that critics of this entry a) have repeatedly mis-cited it, b) are all (with one exception) anonymous, and c) refuse to acknowledge that they lost the AfD vote in a shut-out to non-anonymous WP editors. I would say, too, that the exhortation (above) for the instant editor to abide by WP:AGF did assume that 76.254.28.171 would be able to edit this entry in good faith. His/her comment above makes clear that that would be impossible, as the stated intent of this critic is unambiguously to destroy an entry that passed AfD unanimously. 12.240.34.101 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A person above said of Abramson that "he is not cited by his peers" and that the standard for notability is writing a work that is a "significant monument." Both comments are wrong. WP:Notability (people) says that the "significant monument" test is one of seven tests for a creative professional, and it also says, about those tests, "a person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." One test is whether "the person...[has] had works in many significant libraries." Abramson has had "works" in the top markets in the U.S., all of which are carried by the largest university libraries in America (anyone doubt that Poetry, Boston Review, Harvard Review, New American Writing, The Southern Review, The Iowa Review, et. al. are all catalogued at any university library you could name?). Another standard is whether "the subject is known for originating a significant new concept." Abramson created the first multi-factored assessment of the 300+ Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing programs in the United States. Another standard is whether "the subject has played a major role in co-creating...a significant work." Abramson is co-authoring the sole book on an entire area of graduate educational study in the U.S. Another test is whether the subject is "widely cited by their peers," which someone above said Abramson is not, and I assume the same is being said about the blog, the WP standard for which is whether "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." For the blog Daily Kos, the example given by WP is that blog being covered by The Los Angeles Times and other sources that are WP entries. Abramson and The Suburban Ecstasies have been quoted by The Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, American Bar Association Journal, Inside Higher Ed, Jacket, Nerve, the websites of top poetry journals such as Ploughshares and The Kenyon Review, and major websites such as The Democratic Underground. Anyway, that's just what's on the page here. The person above said that Abramson "is not cited by his peers" when that's wrong, gave the wrong standard for WP:Notability, and failed to say what WP's actual standard is, which is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There's no doubt about that here, and even if you said a particular source was "not substantial coverage," WP guidelines then say that "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." There's more than multiple sources here. But it doesn't get to that point anyway, b/c each of the sources are quoting Abramson and b/c the journal and book publications would reach notability under multiple other standards. There are lots of more notable poets out there, but the question is whether this one's notable and yes, the WP policies are met. P.S. As to the assertion (again, one of countless wrong ones by the person who said it) that "blog traffic" is one of a list of ad hoc criteria, "none of which are relevant to WP guidelines for notability of creative professionals," that person should check out WP:Search engine test, which indicates that such tests can be used, in notability arguments, to determine popularity: both that of a subject (WP recommends Google) and of a website [i.e. blog traffic] (WP recommends the Alexa and Hitwise services, unnecessary here because the subject's website has a link to these statistics via another service). Re: the above on WP:AGF, WP:AGF presumes users who aren't misstating WP policies at such an alarming clip. Burks88 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, seriously, you all are weirdos and you all need to chill. The AfD was keep, and standard practice is to wait a few months before going down that path again, if you must. I am going to move this discussion to an archive page tomorrow -- I think it is bad form to discuss someone, like this, in a public forum -- unless there are objections. Sdedeo (tips) 20:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)