Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriano Bulla

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. In spite of the lengthy defense of this article by many new or quasi-new contributors, the lack of authoritative sources (as the nominator puts it) about the author is and remains a fundamental problem. Fram (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you seem to offer to delete this poet is that YOU DON'T KNOW HIM!!!!!! How ARROGANT!!! Do you know all poets in the world???????? This is just RIDICULOUS!!!! You may not agree he's a metaphysical or whatever... But Thios is meant to be an encyclopaedia... INCLUSIVE, not exclusive, and there are dozens of links to prestigious webistes, including the Guardian and the British Library. FFS!!!! Get a life. Wikipedia deserves its bad reputation!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.87.45 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time there was an article. I counted articles and pages on him in the hundreds, magazines, and I read his books have charted, one apparently settling as second highest charter for a living poet in the UK after Seamus Heaney (!!!) for weeks. Whatever the billion reasons below, there are five or six books of his on the market, lots of articles, reviews and stuff. Not an expert on Wikipedia, but it looks weird that with so many links no one has written one and I'm not good at writing and don't know enough, sonwon't do it and don't want to. But some of the boffins should — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.165.15 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Bulla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I came upon this poet after his name was added to Metaphysical poets. After clearing out the wiki-mirrors used as references there doesn't seem to be anything here. He's published a couple of articles in national newspapers, but the only other sources are of dubious authority: [1], [2], [3]. I can't find anything to substantiate his notability. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I posted about 20 links to newspaper and magazine reviews of his work that have since4 yesterday been deleted.

KeepShall I point out that this poet is sold worldwide, and my links made clear that top-grade academics rate him as an outstanding poet. Also the very link above, greatworks, is opne of the most authoritative poetry webistes in the uk, and shall I point out that the article is signed by T Harrison? So, if you don't know you are talking about someone who is studied in most universities around the country, please DO NOT delete my links. It is also incorrect to say that he has published 'a couple of artcicles': his collection of poetry is available from Blackwells as well and Amazon. Moreover, there are [plenty of articles on him all over the internet. Now, the person above who has deleted more than half my links, would be pleased to know that it will take me time to re-intrioduce the 20 or so articles written on him. The 'couples of newspapers' mean no less than 'The Guardian', by the way, one of the most prestigioyus newspapers in the UK, and with a FEATURED article, not just a few words. So, whoever has nominated this article for deletion should actually look at the oputstanding achie3vements of an academic poet whiose work is by many regarded as great, instead of editing my own article deleting links to reviews of his work to make it seeem as if there is nothing on him on the net, and so cinically ignoring that his work is sold all around the world,. There was a list of more than 20 links to it just before this person decided to tamper with it.

Now, the fact that User:Ethicoaestheticist does not know of Adriano Bulla, is not reason enough to delete a published poet and critic, who has been featured in one of the most prestyigious newspapers in the UK, who has been reviewed by one of the most prestigious English poets and who is widely documented on the internet. As to the link to the metaphysical poetry, I would suggest that the above editor reads an article called 'the conceit of movement' ON Adriano Bulla published in no less than the Times Literary Supplement, which unfortunately is not online, but if we do not count the Guardian, the TLS and Greatworks online as authorities in poetry (He also is featured in Canned, by the way), against the word of a single editor on the basis of his own opinion, then THAT would be an insult to Wikipedia's notability standards. Bulla also appears in OTHER encyclopedias online, and the editor above has been so careful as to delete the links to these encyclopedias. I suggest User:Ethicoaestheticist reads some of his poetry (as I said, he can purchase it online all over the world, or contact Blackwells, a pretty famous distributor in the UK)and makes up for his/her own lack of information, rather than assuming that because s/he does not know him, the poet has never published, never been reviewed or never been featured in magazines, newspapers and webzines, and trys not to delete links to prove a point of 'non-notability' when a search on google will find hundreds of pages with the poet's name.

So, Ethicoaestheticist proposes to delete an article about a poet that s/he does not know by 1- stating the false ('a couple of artcicles' while famous retailers and worldwide online retailers have his poetry in stock), 2- duiscrediting sources (and I would like to see how s/he can discredit the Guardian or Greatworks) and reviewers (which says quite a lot, as they are all lecturers). Now, my case is simple, the poet DOES EXIST, HAS PUBLISHED (I actually posted the ISBN of one of his collections, so, let's try and discredit that now), his work IS AVAILABLE, reviews ARE AVAILABLE online and in magazines, authoritative 3rd party sources ARE PROVIDED, the opinion on his poetry is given in quotationsn, and yes, he is not an old poet, but given the fact that there are plenty of online and paper sources ON him, Wikipedia MUST feature him. Or is Ethicoaestheticist suggesting that no online source is fully traceable? Even there, sorry, but 'The Guardian' is, Blackwell is a one of the biggest book retailers in the UK (the biggest maybe?), unlike most sources on OTHER people who seem to be only online. My sources are online as well as online records of paper sources, therefore, sorry, there is no reason to doubt them (even ukpoetrylive, which by the way is an official poetry website, publishes a paper magazine, and the feature contributors there all have articles on Wikipedia, I don't see why Bulla should not....) Thanks. Now, my contribution to his article on the Metaphysical Powets comes from an online review of his poetry and a TLS (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) article about his poetry which SHOULD interest Ethicoaestheticist if s/he has any interest in metaphysical poetry, and I expressed it as 'some consider Adriano Bulla as a modern metaphysical' which is not deniable. When Dr Asbee (Cambridge University!!!! , the OU) says that in a review, I think it is worth mentioning. Ethicoaestheticist may not agree, but cannot deny that some critics see Bulla as such, and how can s/he not agree if by his/her own admission s/he has never read Bulla's work? Maybe before asking to delete the article Ethicoaestheticist should have bought one of Bulla's books and read it, and to his.her surprise, would have found that Bulla exists, writes, is published and is reviewed around the world. TonyBrit (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Looks OK to me to be honest, with the references that are provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. He's written for the "The Guardian" - not been written about; "topgrade academics", however they might rate him, have not published on him in a peer-reviewed journals that can be traced through obvious finding tools (periodicals index online, periodicals archive online, project muse, jstor, ebsco, etc.: as a bit of an inclusionist I really have done my homework on this one); a TLS review would be enough to clinch it for me (see "inclusionist", above), but I can't find the alleged reference anywhere here or in the article; and no way should he be added to Metaphysical Poets, let alone get his own article, on the basis of a throw-away line in a newspaper review. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep one thing uis deleting the entry from the metaphysical poets, another thing is deleting a published and revied poet from wikipedia. If you dont agree hes ametaphysical, fair enough, but you canmt deny that he exists, hes been published, his books are available (I have them!) and is reviewed online. BY the way, yes, TonyBrit is right Dr Asbbe who reviewd him is cambridge lecturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.26.72 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference whether he's a Cambridge lecturer when he isn't writing a peer-reviewed article or an academic book. Not everything a Cambridge lecturer happens to write on is necessarily notable, any more than anything they happen to mention in conversation. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt. 1- all articles here are supported by online evidence, so why not this one? It has online evidence on specialised websites. 2- It is clear that the aricle talks about a real published poet, some poems are available online and of course, there is the ISBN and the evidence that he is sold in the UK, Canada, France and Norway. 3- There is no reason to doubt what is said about the poet, as it is well supported by evidence. I do not see anything in the article that may suggest any hint of mendacity. 4- I for one have a copy of Ybo' and it IS an amazing collection. 5- It is clear from the quality of the articles ON him that they are very academic, one a very good study in comparative literature [4]. 5- Are we arguing that he shoud be deleted from the list of Metaphysical Poets? No problem, but the fact that he might not be a metaphysical does not mean that he does not exist, has not published and has not been reviewed. 6- Shouldn't Wikipedia be comprehensive? So why eliminate a poet that is sold in shops and reviewed while there are articles on much less significant people? Or should we only include articles on extremely famous people? He certainly is not the most famous poet around, but he must be known to have articles published on him in different websites, and nowadays it's so hard to publish poetry that of course having a whole collection published and sold in bookshops is a feat in itself. 7- I can see other authors who have been proposed for deletion, there is no comparison between the quality of the sources for A Bulla (different sources of established webistes) and the total lack of sources in the other authors. 8- I actually think it is a decently good article, factual and to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.168.162 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I exist and have written books that have been reviewed and read on three continents - it makes me a "real published historian"; it doesn't make me a notable historian. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bulla's book is published by Poetry Monthly Press [5], which specialises in self-publishing. Here are their terms: [6]--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of courseThere are actually more links on the Adriano Bulla article to sources than on the onbe on the Metaphysical Poets, so, if we simply go by the rule that we need evidence of notability, well, there is (on Wikipedia) more evidence about Bulla than the Metaphysicals themselves. Now, that the Metaphysicals are famous there is no doubt, but we canot use paper sources on wikipedia, so, as things stand, at the moment, the article on Bulla is better DOCUMENTED than the one on the metaphysicals. Whether his name should appear as a Metaphysical, it's a matter for the editor of that article to decide, but how can HE suggest that a better documented article should be deleted? I think it's a good article, balanced and what is the point in requesting paper sources that canot be quoted online? How many articles are there on wikipedia that refer to paper sources? Plus, it is evident from the article, the reviews and the poems themselves that Bulla is an extremely talented writer - if young. I find it rather upsetting that someone who allegedly likes poetry would like such a poet to be ignored. And what could be bad about having an article on a poet on wikipedia? Does it by any means hurt anybody to document the work of a talented writer? Even his newspaper article in the Guardian is extremely well written. I bought his collection from a bookshop, and yes, I appreciate his work and am pleased to see a some information on him here. I have also noticedfrom the vandalic attacks (some silly comments, like that he had chlamydia appeared) that seem to be proof that the article is receiving attention and the name is known, maybe not a best-seller so far, but do we only put best-sellers in Wikipedia? Most of the writers would need to go then... Now, Patience Agabi's article has only ONE source, and an online source. Should she be deleted? Even the article on Derek Walcott has about the same number of sources as Adriano Bulla's and of course all online - should the nobel prize winner be deleted? At least Bulla has a paper record in The Guardian and UKPoetryLive as a source. How can this be denied?

Again, The Guardian reference is not a source on him: it's an article by him. UKPoetryLive is "a source", but not what wikipedia requires: a reliable source; it's basically an "experimental poetry" fanzine. And "Adriano Bulla, whose articles on post-colonialism and on identity have been published in 'The Guardian', has agreed to write fierce article against the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was ON him, as stated in my article, it is BY him. TonyBrit (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above ukpoetrylive is 'basically a fanzine'. How inaccurate is that? ukpoetrylive is not anyone's fanzines but it collects and publishes articles on experimental poets, amongst others Mapanje etc... Read the editorial policy, all submissions need to be provided with contact details, only published writers can be reviewed, there are links to other sites, and it publishes its own paper format. By the way, Bulla appears in LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, a specialised poetry magazine, and in Openings 16, 1999, an anthology published by the Open University. Plus I read that comment on amateurs, well, again (talk) misread the article in ukpoetrylive, Bulla seems to be meant to attack the examination boards, calling them amateurs. I suppose, again, that is his own opinion, but that is what criticism is all about. I agree with the comment above, there are plenty of poets here whose only source seems to be a reference online, I do not see what the problem with the sources on Bulla is. I have given varied sources ON him and by him, both greatworks.org.uk is a very establiseh site, with a clear editorial policy, a named editor and contacts, ukpoetrylive is all but a famzine, the articles there are of extremely high academic level, and contact details are available and must be provided to the editor on submitting articles, I have now given you two magazines where Bulla appeared. Now if your game is simply discrediting all sources, then I suppose we could delete half the poets on Wikipedia. I do not see different sources for most of the other contemporary poets on Wikipedia either, as stated by someone in a post above. Shall I make a list of poets whose only source is an online reference? I have emailed ukpoetrylive on the subject of the reliability of the webzine, informing them that (talk) calls it a 'fanzine', which is really against what is clearly stated in the editorial policy, and clearly does not accept articles that are not of good academic standard. I still would like (talk) to get in touch with greatworks.org and tell them that they, despite being one of the mostauthoritative organisations (.org) online when it comes to poetry, should be regarded as liars. (talk) assumes that sources that are regarded as reliable on their own for other poets should be regarded as non reliable for Mr Bulla. Why? Double standards? TonyBrit (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If half the poets on wikipedia could only be referenced to websites like ukpoetrylive then yes, they should be deleted. Please list them. Reviews in reputable (fact-checking) newspapers and discussions in peer-reviewed academic texts, as well as certain types of edition are of a completely different order of verifiability and notability (which is not to say that ukpoetrylive does not partially meet both descriptions, but I'm sure the editor would be the first to tell you it doesn't entirely meet either). As I said, a review in the TLS would be quite sufficient for me, but although one has been claimed to exist it is referenced neither here nor in the article. I would say you seem to have a much lower opinion of fanzines than I have; personally I have nothing against them except that they don't meet the guidelines on verifiability. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There isn't only ukpoetrylive that Paularblaster keep banging on about, there is also greatworks.org.uk. And Blackwells and stuff. I think that there are quite enough sources to establish that what is said is true. Also, first Paularblaster said ukpoetrylive was a fanzine, now it meets some of the standards. Well, some of the standards met by ukpoetrylive, all met by greatworks, the Guardian - which is there as a reference to him as critic maybe- and what is his problem? Shouldn't wikipedia try to provide AS MANY SOURCES as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.254.89 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that it was one of the people here who "keeps banging on about" ukpoetrylive - after I pointed out that the references to The Guardian are to pieces of journalism written by the subject, rather than pieces about him written by someone else. The reaction to my mention of fanzines, and the apparent belief that my further remarks indicate some sort of retraction of the comparison, reveal unsuspected depths of snobbery. Any decent fanzine would meet some of the standards; the point is that they don't fully meet the standards. And in that respect greatworks.org.uk is certainly no more a reliable source than ukpoetrylive is. Wikipedia should be striving, in the first instance, not for lots of sources but for one or two policy-compliant sources; which is to say: references in other encyclopedias and reference works (no matter how specialized in scope), major newspapers, top-level academic textbooks, peer-reviewed academic works. Just find one of these to demonstrate this writer's notability in a verifiable manner, and the article is sure to be kept and can then be fleshed out from things like ukpoetrylive at will. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis does Paularblaster discard ukpoetrylive (partially) then neglects greatworks.org.uk? He wanted paper evidence? I have given an Open University anthology and another magazine, all registered publications.

An example of a poet who has an unreliable source? Gillian Clarke, her own website is cited as the main source and a small biography on an unofficial site about Welsh poets [7][sohttp://gillianclarke.co.uk/home.htm], . Delete her then. No reviews ON her are given, no proof of her importance as a writer is cited. So, my article is actually supported by MORE EVIDENCE and 3rd party evidence, Gillian Clarke's isn't. Double standards?TonyBrit (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the subject being anthologized, if you read the policies and guidelines again (and yes, I know we shouldn't be slaves to them) you'll see that writers being published is not sufficient; they have to be written about in secondary publications of the type detailed at WP:V. Arguments that an article should be kept because strictly comparable articles have not (yet) been deleted are generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but if you do really think that Gillian Clarke cannot be edited up to scratch, then do please nominate the article for deletion. As I've already said, I'm not much of deletionist so if you could just give the reference to the TLS review you mentioned I'll be able to check it when I'm in the library on Thursday and will happily withdraw my seconding of the nomination for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been invited to comment on this article. I am the editor of ukpoetrylive.page.tl. I do not know the poet personally, but do know his work, as it appears many other people on Wikipedia.org. I must strongly object to the comment posted by Paularblaster above, that ukpoetrylive is a 'fanzine', and I am pleased that the same has later on changed his mind. Our editorial policy is very clear, only published writers can be reviewed, we check every reviewer's details, which must be given to us, and we do not accept articles from amateurs or of low academic standards. I find it very unfair to have my site defined a'fanzine'. I understand a fanzine to be a website set up to promote an artist, while mine only accepts very academic articles, and we do have difficulty finding articles that satisfy our standards, and does not promote any artist, it simply records academic studies, rather than reviews on experimental poets in the English language. We do not have any direct contact with the artists. In Adriano Bulla's case, I must say that he is the most visited poet on our website. All our featured poets have an article in Wikipedia, and links are provided. The articles on him are undoubtedly of very good standards. Should Paularblaster wish to contact me, I would be pleased if he sent me an email. Personally, I first heard of Mr Bulla from a friend, a lecturer, who introduced me to his work. I bought his collection online and did a google search to know more about him. I found an article on him in greatworks.org.uk, a very established poetry website, which also has a biography of the poet that seems to match what is reported on wikipedia. We have recently contacted Mr Bulla through his school, the prestigious Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in London and asked him to contribute a review, having been impressed by his style in the article he published in The Guardian. He has accepted but such review is not ready yet. The reason why we have contacted him is that, as stated above, we DO find it difficult to have submissions that satisfy our academic standards. Other featured poets in our websiuite are J Mapanje and P Agabi, however, we have found less good quality work on them than on Mr Bulla. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-+

No offence intended; I clearly take a higher view of fanzines than Mr Bulla's fans do. My own notion of a fanzine is not that it is a promotional website (or indeed any kind of website, or any kind of promotion), but that it is a publication by which fans can share their reflections on the subject of their enthusiasm - reflections that can be complex and profound. I was much impressed, in just this respect, by the zine of the Charles University Tolkien Society. It is a form of publication for which I feel much affection, but sadly it does not fit wikipedia's guidelines on sources, and so far as I can tell ukpoetrylive does not either; as the ways in which they do not are strictly comparable I saw no harm in drawing the parallel, which was intended to elucidate rather than to belittle. I have explored your site, and bookmarked it for further reference, but even with the undoubtedly high intellectual tone it strikes me very much as being about sharing an enthusiasm (in the best tradition of the fanzine), rather than about enforcing the rigorous policies that should typify academic peer-review or media fact-checking. The way that you encourage readers to send in reviews is one of the things that weighed in my assessment. Other editors may think otherwise - these discussions are all about reaching consensus. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wonder what Paularblaster means by peers? University lecturers certaibnly have a right to publish well written articles on poets they have studied, as they do on our site. We DO NOT ALLOW anybody to post, all posts come through the editor, it is not a free for all. Paularblaster uses rhetoric, 'it strikes me' 'enthusism' to DISTORT facts as stated. If a Cambridge lecturer published an article ABOUT him (Sue Asbee) that means at least a peer has talked about him, not to talk about the other 4 signed articles available online. His comment on our forthcoming article BY A Bulla, (quote 'the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony!') seems to imply that Mr Bulla should be deleted because he has no right to express his views and is not FACTUAL nor relevant to the point, unlike our page, which IS factual.Paularblasteris therefore using irony to prove a point about whether the Wikipedia article is supported by online evidence. I will tell him, irony does not count as evidence! We are as a site non-committal with regard to Mr Bulla's views on the examination boards, but will not prevent Mr Bulla from expressing his views on his peers, as long as his article meets our academic standards. We also find that he should have kept the argument factual insteead of using sarcasm. No wghere in the deletion policies here is written that if someone posts a sarcastic comment on a poet he should be deleted. Paularblaster may disagree with Mr Bulla's views, but that does not give him a right to DISTORT FACTS. I suggest that if he disagrees with Mr Bulla's views he reads the article and provides us with a counter article, if it meets our standards and we are given his contact details, he will receive a call from us to discuss the publication of his work on our website. We do not appreciate PaularblasterPERSONAL assessment of our site as 'sharing enthusiasm' about poetry therefore being a fanzine. Of course a site about poetry has an INTEREST in poetry, butb all our articles are traceable, well written and highly academic. What he UNDERSTANDS to be a fanzine does not make our site a fanzine, as what he understands is not FACTUAL. A fanzine is a promotional site dedicated to an artist, not a general site about poetry where academics can post. Moreover, every submission is screened, publication on our website is not open to every 'fan'. I find Paularblasteruses HIS opinions to prove a point, and why should we listen to his opinions against signed articles by academics that have provided contact details? We do not claim to be a famoyus website like www.greatworks.org.uk where Mr Bulla is reviewed more in detaiil and where there is a biography of the writer (which Paularblaster keeps ignoring), however, we ARE a serious poetry website. So far, our counter says that more than 1,200 people have read the articles on Mr Bulla, which tells us that there is interest in the poet, given the fact that such articles are not easy to read and poetry is not read by many in the UK. Paularblaster seems to be on a personal crusade against Mr Bulla and our site. As someone posted above, a lot of other poets, including Gillian Clarke, are supported only by what really is OPENLY a fansite as evidence for a Wikipwedia article. Our site is about experimental poetry, not Mr Bulla alone, who is ONE of our featured artistrs, not the only one. Paularblaster also seems to be fighting a very lonely battle on the whole, as it appears that the great majority of posts on this thread are against his views, and more for FACTS. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ukpoetrylive might like to try reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette, as well as deleting one of his duplicate "keep" recommendations. I can assure User:Ukpoetrylive that I am not on a "personal crusade" against Mr Bulla; when the article on him was nominated for deletion I looked for sources to save the article and could find none that conform to wikipedia guidelines and policies. Since simply pointing this out I have been inundated with comments and replies (the "great majority of posts" referenced by User:Ukpoetrylive, although all posted either by one IP or another, or by User:TonyBrit, so it's moot just how many people are involved in the discussion). These replies, I feel bound to point out, indulge in all the classic non-reasons such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, irrelevant appeals to authority along the lines of "this was said by an academic" (flattering to us academics, but not useful in this context), insinuations of some sort of ulterior motive from WP:SPAs who themselves might benefit from reading WP:COI, and still nothing to establish Mr Bulla's notability in terms of wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sorry for the list of jargon, but it is almost comical how every trick in the book is being put on display, as though in a deliberate showcasing of bad AfD arguments. I won't go into the various (mis)readings of my own arguments immediately above, since they hardly seem to be to the point. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an experienced commentator, in fact I have joined just because invited. So forgive me for not following all these strange etiquette rules. However, everybody can contact me, my email is on my website, and what I say has no less value because I know little of wikipedia acronyms than others. Thanks Ukpoetrylive (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep notability proved in greatworks.org.uk and backed up. credible article Logastellus (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source needs to be found to substantiate the claim that Sue Asbee [8] has indeed written an article about the poet, whether in an academic journal, a newspaper or even on a credible website. The reference in the article is to this [9], which is clearly inadequate (and gives the name as A.Asbee). It occurred to me that since Asbee teaches at the OU and it has been claimed in this discussion that Bulla's work appears in an Open University anthology, that perhaps Asbee once said some nice words about her students' work, and that is where all this is coming from, but that is just conjecture. By the way, the Openings website makes clear that the "The magazine is not considered a publication per se, rather it is produced by the members for members"[10]. The Openings anthology homepage is here: [11].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The flaw with the argument here is thatEthicoaestheticist and Paularblaster show problems with SOME of the sources, however they do not tackel the main source I provide. Not everything on the net is 100% reliable, we know that, but assuming that PART of the sources are not reliable while ignoring my main source is not an argument that stands. As to Dr Asbee, well, I did not even enter that source to start with and have entered the comment carefully, also because there are some typos in that review. It is by NO MEANS what my article's reliability rests on. I will here point out again that iit is requested that there is a reliable and verifiable 2nd part source (http://greatworks.org.uk) by the guidelines. FAILING this (!!!!!!!) a series of different sources should be provided. I have provided different sources ON TOP of the first one. I would really invite the two supporters of deletion to comment on this. Attacking back up sources and ignoring the main source is not a reason to delete. TonyBrit (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paularblaster proposes deleting the article on the basis that he /she thinks ukpoetrylive is not a reliable source. My counter-agrument is that...

1- IT IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE PROVIDED. http://www.greatworks.org.uk is one of the most authoritative poetry websites in the UK and has a more comprehensive review of Bulla's work than ukpoetrylive as well as a biography. So far s/he has completely neglected the other sources provided and has turned the argument into a discussion about ONE OF THE WEBSITES provided.

2- OTHER POETS HAVE FAR LESS RELIABLE SOURCES. As I have pointed out, Gillian Clarke has just her own website as a source (that is a 'fanzine'), no review of her poetry at all, yet that seems to be sufficient.

3- SOURCES CAN BE OF ANY MEDIA, according to the guidelines, well, I have provided sources in paper form and on the net. Different ones all saying the same thing. However, Paularblaster is now asking me to provide a hyper link to a paper source. That is not possible and I have provided publication and ISSN of an Open University Anthology and previous publications. These ARE NOT ONLINE. I would like then to see the same treatment for other articles. I do not see paper sources for most poets or writers on here, I have provided reference for Mr Bulla, and still Paularblaster is not satisfied.

4- HIS COMMENTS ARE NON FACTUAL. Use of sarcasm will not prove anything. S/he should read the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive and not assume that the site accepts evrey submission. S/he seems to think that it is a 'blog'. It simply isn't, and is not backed up by other than his 'impression'.

5- UKPOETRYLIVE is not a 'fanzine'. Which shows that Paularblaster is willingly attacking a source. It appears that the website does not allow anybody to post freely on it. It checks all its contributors' details and expects very high academic standards. The editor has offered his availability to be contacted. Still, Paularblaster talks about his/her IMPRESSION (!!!!!) that the website is 'enthusiastic' about poetry as being unreliable. This is not in the guidelines. Nowhere is it written that specialised websites sshould be disinterested in their subject matter. It is a 3rd party website (and NOT THE ONLY ONE PROVIDED). Its policy is clear. I wonder what 'IMPRESSION' s/he has of Gillian Clarke's own website? Is it a 3rd party website? Is it not related to the author? I have provided a few examples where poets are included with sources that are no where near as reliable as the ones I have included. And why should his/her 'IMPRESSION' matter so much? Impressions are not facts.

6- I have provided a list of bookshops that sell Bulla's work. It is shown as available in different countries all over the world. This is not bad for a poet (we may remember that poetry is not as common as novels etc...)

7- There have been different comments on this article by different people. Paularblaster quickly discards them all (I count 4 different signed people), yet forgets that s/he is alone in his/her argument. I checked the other articles for deletion. I do not see the same INTEREST as in this poet's article. Not only, I see that most articles are very weak and really provide no 3rd party sources at all. This is a different case altogether.

8- S/He wants reviews by peers, yet does not accept lecturers as peers?

9- S/he does not seem to realise that for a poet to have 1,200 hits on a very academic article on him in a few months is a certain sign of notability. Or does he deny that there is a counter at the bottom of the ukpoetrylive page?

As to the link to the Metaphisical poets, as I have said, the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list, but to delete an article on a poet altogether, backed up by online and paper evidemce, well, that's far too much.

I rest my case. TonyBrit (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. 1. User:Paularblaster has already addressed the issue of multiple sources: the point is not numbers of sources but compliance with policy and guidelines; 2. User:Paularblaster has already provided a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; 3. see 1, and please recognize that User:Paularblaster has not asked for a hyperlink to a paper source; s/he has asked for a reference (not a link) so that a repeatedly but vaguely mentioned paper source can be checked; 4. User:Paularblaster has been consistently patient and polite, and has clearly indicated when his/her comments have been fact and when opinion; 5a. User:Paularblaster is appalled at the depths of snobbery elicited by his/her mention of fanzines, which is not a term indicating an attack, and suggests that some of the contributors to this discussion might like to read Fanzine just so that they know what one is; 5b. far from saying that enthusiasm for a topic is a bad thing, User:Paularblaster has referred to enthusiasm only in the context of defending fanzines from the outraged vituperation of snobs; 5c. fanzines do not print anything anyone happens to send in, and vary greatly in how scholarly they are, so the way in which ukpoetrylive differs from a more scholarly fanzine (one example of which has been mentioned a few posts previously) has yet to be established; 5d. Gillian Clarke is still a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS no matter how many times she is mentioned; 5e. User:Paularblaster's impressions matter because if User:TonyBrit wants to form a positive consensus he will have to convince other editors (of whom User:Paularblaster is one) that s/he can actually provide policy-compliant sources; 6. User:Paularblaster can provide a far from exhaustive international list of bookshops selling User:Paularblaster/Publications, but would not expect that to be counted as a verified assertion of his/her notability; 7a. User:Paularblaster might be forgiven for thinking that the consistent style of the postings in favour of the article (HisSpaceResearch's "weak keep" excepted) would justify a usercheck; 7b. User:TonyBrit seems to forget that User:Paularblaster came here initially to defend the article from deletion but was forced to conclude that the nominator, a different editor, was correct in seeing the article as one that fails to meet wikipedia's really rather modest requirements; 7c. User:Paularblaster regularly reviews articles nominated for AfD and proposed for deletion with the intention of saving articles that can be improved, and is struck by the extent to which this nomination has elicited responses (again with the exception of HisSpaceResearch) only from passionately invested SPAs, IPs, and from User:Paularblaster (who is thoroughly enjoying this discussion, but couldn't care less about Adriano Bulla except in so far as his inclusion meets wikipedia's guidelines); 8. "peer-reviewed" does not mean that Bulla's peers have reviewed his work, it means that a piece of writing by one academic has been subjected to anonymous scrutiny by one or more other academics before being published; it is also used more widely to mean the various related safeguards to academic quality that academic publishing maintains (such as sending books out to known experts for review, rather than inviting readers to send in reviews, as ukpoetrylive does); 9. ukpoetrylive has a counter on the site - I'm not sure that that meets WP:N or WP:V, let me just check ....; 10. (unnumbered postscript in original post) it is not the case that "the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list": the author of the article, by posting it on wikipedia, has made it common (intellectual) property to be edited by any other editor; you have done the same; wikipedia is not a collection of single-authored articles, but a collection of mass-co-edited articles, and its contents are subject not to authorial preference but to community consensus. If you have any new infomation that would shed light on this matter please do post it. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good article with good reference. Blueswan1967 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)— Blueswan1967 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am pleased to see that User:Paularblaster entered the discussion to keep the article. But s/he is still dodging the question of http://www.greastworks.org.uk and keeps talking about ukpoetrylive. The most comprehensive information on A Bulla comes from the former, not the latter, which is used as an extra source. I do not feel there is any snobbery. I simply commented on the use of sarcasm and 'impression'. TonyBrit (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted many sources and I do not understand the problems Paularblaster has with them, so, I will go through them one by one.

1 - http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html It is a very famous poetry website, has a rather comprehensive academic article written by T Harrison on A Bulla, which clearly states that A Bulla is a force in literature to be recognised. User:Paularblaster has not commented on this source at all, yet, it is thee main source fror my article.

2- http://www.greatworks.org.uk/texts.html the same website with a biography of A Bulla, which matches what is in my article.

3 - http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl User:Paularblaster seems to have reservations about this site. Yet, S C Gale, the editor has joined in on my request and re-iterated that the site only accepts academic articles by academics whose contact details are checked. SC Gale also states that the rather hard to read articles on him in the website he moderates were read by 1,200 people in the last few months. That certainly is a lot for a poet, and given the high quality of the articles, one would not expect that number. The counter at the bottom of the pages shows quite a few visits (up to 100) a day and in their LINKS page, A Bulla seems to be more popular than all the other featured poets. On this very day so far, 88 people have read reviews of his poetry on this website according to the counter. That ADDS proof to the notability argument which, as I have said mainly rests on http://greatworks.org.uk All this is recorded DESPITE the editor, if I am not mistaken. Please check out the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl/SUBMISSIONS.htm I do not see where they contradict wikipedia policies , i.e. 'the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

4 - http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/Languagesnews/TEFL/tefl200381.htm This is the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. It's a National and official website related to the University of Stirling. I have included this reference to prove that A Bulla has status in the academic world, and the article pertains Post-Colonial policies.

5- http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4811005-108281,00.html is from The Guardian. Now, I have never said that there are articles on HIM in the Guardian, but BY him, (from my article 'He has also published in The Guardian). That article was the featured article of the week. It is there to prove the point that Mr Bulla has credibility as a commentator/critic, and I do not see where User:Paularblasterhas read that I said there are articles ON him in the Guardian. There may as well be, but I have no evidence of that.

6- I have just added 'Openings' 1999, The Open University. This is an anthology. It is there to back up my point that his first publications were in the late 90s. I do not have a copy of the anthology, but I am sure it is available from the Open University. I am sure this adds to the point that Mr Bulla must be regarded as having some literary status and influence if the Open University decided to include him in an anthology.

7- LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, This is a poetry publication,, it is there to prove that his first publications were in the 1990s, at least that we know of.

8- http://www.critiquesdelivres.com/1905126182 is there to show a comment on his work by Dr Asbee. It is a French website, I do not know how reliable it is, but it is of little relevance to us, given all the links above.

Now, I do not think Mr Bulla is a household name. Most, even influential, poets are NOT in fact. This is the reason why I have produced a series of links all showing his literary status and recognistion in the academic world. His 'notability' is in my opinion widely proven in the academic world. There are academics and academies that have either published his work or work ON him.

As to Gillian Clarke, of course I do not expect her to be deleted, my point is simply that there isn't as much online evidence of her 'notability' and yet she is still included. The editors may know her, but that does not make her necessarily notable.

For a modern poet to have 4 articles on him published online by academics, it is quite a lot, as we do not find the same amount of evidence on a lot of other poets.

The TLS, I said it appears to be from an article, I do not have that copy of the TLS therefore I have NOT included it in my sources nor in my article. I have just retreived LINKS and a refernece to 'Openings'. But do we expect an article i8n the TLS for all writers on Wikipedia? That would be impossible, also because the TLS do not come in e-format.

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that Mr Bulla is a respected author in academic circles and read pretty widely for a poet, especially a 'highbrow' one like him (a poetry book would sell well with 2000 copies in the UK, we are talking about a similar number of readers for CRITICISM on his poetry....)

From the notability guidelines of Wikipedia: 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

All these are met by http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html alone (no one has dared discredit this site, neither User:Paularblaster nor Ethicoaestheticist), PLUS I have a list of websites and paper publications to back it up. So, I think my article meets the basic guideline listed above, attacking back up soources while ignoring my main ones seems to be, sorry to say that, creating a diversive, a smoke screen to divert attention from the main source. Therefore, unless my main sources can be discredited, I do not see any reason for deletion. One could actually argue the other way round: i.e. that sources whose reliability may not be certain are validated by the matching information in reliable sources. In the end, that's what Wikipedia does: it is not itself a reliable source, but as long as the information matches what's available on reliable sources, it is generally considered accurate. My secondary sources match what appears in the main ones, which no one has discredited, so they very likely are fairly reliable....TOO. TonyBrit (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable published sources about the poet and his works. None of above mentioned or what i can find myself cuts it for me, including Great Works. until there is more substantial coverage which I surely wish to Adriano Bulla, we should also consider Flicker poem --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree with Tikiwont editorial policy of greatworks.org.uk clearly matches WP:N so do other sources. Logastellus (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is their opinion, Logastellus (talk · contribs) may want to consider to actually start editing and write an article on that site.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tikiwont says that none of the sources 'cuts it for me'. Now, with all respect, that is a bit vague. Being a Middle Temple Barrister myself, I would argue that if there is a policy, the sources either comly with the policy or don't. ShouldTikiwont state in what respects greatworks.org.uk does not comply to the Wikipedia policies, I would myself comply with a deletion, but I would need to know why this does NOT comply to the policy.

In detail:

This is from the Wikipedia Policy:

' topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4] "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.'

[[12]]

To start with, an article should be PRESUMED to be notable unless there is a specific fault with the sources, while some commentator here are presuming non-notability on the basis of their opinion (I quote 'without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors'.) This clearly contradicts the Wikipedia policy above. It's like in court when we presume someone innocent.

Now the criteria to prove that a source is not acceptable are as follow (again, from the policy)

"Significant coverage" "Reliable" and "verifiable" "sources" as secondary sources "Independent of the subject" meaning not produced by the subject of the article.

I would like to know which of these criteria are not met, otherwise, we should presume notability. If there is a policy, we should stick to it.

Now, www.greatworks.org.uk covers A Bulla with an extensive review, which makes up most of the article in Wikipedia (see references to it in the article) therefore, it would be absurd to say that there is no significant coverage. Other sources comply with this.

I would like to know then, if www.greatworks.org.uk is for the above commentator, not reliable or verifiable. As per usual, contact details are provided which means it is verifiable. I will also point out that it is a prestigious poetry website, so well above "reliable" in all respects. If anyone could find fault with the website's reliability or verifiability, then it would not fit the policy's criteria.

"Independent of the subject" it certainly is. It is an impartial poetry website edited by Peter Philpott which has been running for quite a long time.

Moreover I would point out that despite some comments on ukpoetrylive, this site too matches all the above - though not as famous as greatworks.org.uk, it provides verifiable details, it is independent from Mr Bulla, is a secondary source and gives coverage in detail of some of Mr Bulla's poems.

Again, 'detractors' have called it 'fanzine' or generally addressed it as not good enough, but no one has yet told me where this website too fails in relation to the specific notability guidelines in the policy.

They either comply or not. If not, I would kindly like to know how they do not comply. 'It doesn't cut it for me' or 'it's enthusiastic' etc are nice comments, but do not refer to the policy.

So, There sould not be any doubt about the fact that the sources do establish notability.

There are then The Guardian and other websites too, but I am not entering into the old argument, these provide, again evidence of some of the information I have provided.

I would like to point out some other fallacies in the arguments put forward, which, though absolutely marginal to the point of notability, I feel I have to debate. 1- Arguing that one source is not reliable (and I myself am not convinced about critiquedelivres, because it seems that to post a comment one simply needs to email them and confirm, unlike other sites, but the information there is similar to what we find in other articles) all the others should be disregarded.

I read a comment above that being included in 'Openings' does not constitute publication. we all know that poetry anthologies often have the proviso 'it does not constitute publication' for copyright reasons, that, however, does not detract from the fact that the Open University have included A Bulla in one of their anthologies.

I will therefore change the article from 'published in Openings' to 'included in Openings, amn anthology published by the Open University', and I do wonder what the difference in academic terms will be... none?

Some commentators have arguesd using a lot of Wikipedic slang. Well, if a comment does not use the exact slang, that does not detract from the validity of the comment. As I read in the deletion policies, the final judgement should be made on the arguments presented.

On the other hand, this use of wikipedic slandg (which I myself am not familiar with) seems to me to miss the point, lots of acronyms and re-directions but I have seen little reference to the particular criteria of the notability policy and no evidence as to how these sources do not meet such specific criteria. I have seen a presumption of non-notability, on the other hand, an attemt to discredit sources without pinpointing where the sources fail and sometimes using humour, often saying 'for me'. Well a policy is a policy. Point to where each source fails, and if you manage to prove that each source is unreliable, delete. Call my sources whatever you want, but if they meet the precise critera... Keep... This is the policy and it's independent from the editors' views... stated in the policy itself We have a contract, we either stick to it or not. Thanks. TonyBrit (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you say greatworks.org.uk is a self published website, and these are in general not considered sufficiently reliable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 That policy seems to be clear enough to me and as far as I'm concerned, it applies to the mentioned sources about the subject, whether or not you consider some of them prestigious or famous, since this assertion is again not backed up by reliable sources that write about the websites.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i don't have an account and i can't sign but have read this with interest. I've already posted and I see that I agree with TonyBrit. There are rules which either the article breaks or not. I can't see where they are broken. please point out in detail where the sources do not work, otherwise it's just your opinion. That's not enough. Now, even above where someone says IP rather than user, so what? I am an IP, I have no account and don't want one. But is this an open forum? Is it not meant to be about the content of wht we say, not who we are? And who are the signed ones? Are wikipedia's user acounts verifyable? And the policy says about the argument not about who we are. Very week argument 4 deletion backed up by a lot of vague comment, slang, but no reference to the policy in detail . Very strong and detailed argument 2 keep and just based on deletion policy Keep, no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.254.89 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erroneous, Tikiwont, http://www.greatworks.org.uk cannot be considered a self-published website. It is a poetry website which has no relation whatsoever to Mr Bulla. Unless we consider every website a 'self-published site'. Again, it is clear from your guidelines that no websites published about the subject and by the subject should be included. Now, despite the fact that other authors are in Wikipedia and supported by their own webpage, www.greatworks.org.uk is not a self-published site but a trust (.org) and is by no means related to A Bulla. ukpoetrylive is a freestanding website and by no means related to A Bulla. I would like to see how far we can go and argue that no website is per se a verifyable source.

From Wikipedia:

'Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable'

The site does not match any of the above or the further specification

' "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.'

I would point out that www.greatworks.org.uk is deposited with the British Library (should therefore have an ISSN and the names of the publishers, editors, contributors and copyrights should be deposited).

[13]

Again, this is a third party (and what more than the British Library?) That gusrantees the verifyablility of the site. I would really like to see how many sources can claim as much by any means... Backed by the British Government! [14] (I count 5 in the whole world, and mine is one of them...) What more does one need? On top of that, 2 .ac (academies - again official educational insitutions recognised by the UK, not any website, by those 700 or so MPs that sit in that very famous building called Westminster Parliament, its government anf HM The Queen) and despite these sites having such seal of approvals as the gates of the houses of common and the Royal emblem, here we are arguing that they are not veryfiable? Well, this is a paradox. Now, let's check most of the articles on Wikipedia and see how many have the same guarantors as official stamps from the the UK government. Come on!!! You 'state it's a self-published site, but it simply is not and is not published by Mr Bulla and is Backed by the British Library.

I do think we are becoming ridiculous with this argument. The 'delete' party have been trying to discredit sources all along, not giving detailed reference, and when they did, they stumbled across no less than the British Library itself, the UK Government institution that is the guarantor of all UK publications.

If I had to request the same amount of 'officiality', 'veryfyability' to all articles, Wikipedia would be reduced to about 200 articles altogether.

I rest my case. Go and tell the British Library that they have been mistaken and should not archive and put their seal on www.greatworks.org.uk now. When I get a formal letter from the British Library, I will consider deleting the article. So far, there is no way we can try and discredit the reliability og greatworks.org.uk your opinion against the official seal of the British Government.

I told you I am a Barrister (Middle Temple- check it up). I teased all the 'delete' party to discredit www.greatworks.org.uk in order to prove that one can say whatever one wants on a website and 'tag' a website whatever one wants, unless... unless... there is an official stamp on it and www.greatworks.org.uk, it escaped most of our detractors, simply has the biggest seal of reliability of all: the British Library. Paularblaster Ethicoaestheticist were wiser, they did not attack my main source despite my teasing them, but limited their argument to vaguely showing some doubts about back-up sources. Tikiwont attacked my main source, now, s/he has to explain to me whether the British Government is not enough to guarantee the reliability of my source...

Endgame. Your honour, I rest my case.

TonyBrit (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the UK Web Archiving Consortium: "The inclusion of any web site in this UK Web Archiving Consortium archive does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the information held on those sites" [15]. the site is archived by the Consortium (or at least was in 1996 2006), but does not guarantee its reliability. Here is a list of another 171 literature websites being archived: [16].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, my above remark refers to self-publishing not in the sense of published by Bulla, but to self published by someone (Peter Philpott). I did indeed not noctice the note about archiving by the BL. I did notice, however, that neither the site nor the person have curently an article. That might of course be an omission, but on the other hand the site is hardly linked to from other wikipedia articles apart from those related to Bulla [17] So I may or may not have been wise, and i am certainly not a barrister, but I certainly do not aim at 'attacking' or discredit sites or sources, but was just trying to help to built consensus here. Therefore, I am mildly dissapointed that possibly useful information has been held back for the sake of playing games and lengish tirades. That the site is archived as part of a project at the British library is interesting and might require further investigation.

Which could have been doen already if put on the table, but has now been initiated above. As far as I see this amounts to 2 editions in 2006, and it is not clear whetehr they include the text on Bulla (and actually it does not seem to be the case). Nor do I see how this amounts to an ISSN which isn't necessary anyway. While I am not convinced that this seals the issue or that all adds already up to notability, I am not on a case here. Rather I'd appreciate a relisting of thsi discussion, possibly with the so far contributors stepping back.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All issues get archived by the British Library, of course the article on Mr Bulla is not archived yet, but will be in due course. I do believe that the British Library 'seal of approval' on the website is clear. I did not hold back information. I kept saying that previous 'delete' suggestions were based on a source that was not my main source, and that there was no doubt about the reliability of my main source. The article is clearly mainly based on greatworks, ukpoetrylive is used to develop some themes (the articles in there are more limited in scope if more detailed). I have used the Guardian and Scotticsh CILT to prove that Bulla's contributions to Postcolonial Studies are accredited by academic insitutions. I have now provided a list of 3 major bookshops that sell his work in the UK. I do not honestly think there is a case for deletion. I have not held back information on purpose, but have based myargument on wikipedia's policy... a source is presumed reliable unless proof against it is given (self-publication being proof). TonyBrit (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (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.