Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postbeat Poets (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postbeat Poets

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

Unencyclopedic; appears to consist entirely of original research; very little external verification of this movement's existence, let alone of the specific trends described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphinusMach1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—The movement is at least real and discussed in academia. See here for an review from J. Am. Hist. that mentions it twice as if its audience knows what it is; possibly the book under review will explain everything. This review itself isn't a hook to hang notability on, but it shows that the movement isn't just made up. Also, it seems that it's usually hyphenated, as "post-beat". This may improve other editors' searches. There are a few other hits on JSTOR for "post-beat", but I don't have time to go through them now and at least some of them are about cardiology (scary!). I'll be back.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep another book and an anthology. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. this (obscure) anthology lists authors considered post beat poets by the author. the phrase post beat doesnt occur in relation to them at those authors featured in the anthology which have WP articles on them. the phrase "post-beat" has some use, simply in referring to poets that became known after that period, but not as a school of any note. surely someone writing articles on these poets, some of them (like Lyn Lifshin), being fairly notable, would have referred to them as post beat. the book sutras and bardos came out this year[1], so even this usage makes it a very recent neologism. this book also mentions post beat, but only in passing, and its also of very recent publication. this use comes close to establishing the term, but is only a passing reference, not an entry in the Columbia dictionary of modern European literature. Its use on WP is extremely marginal in all its uses, and often simply self referential back to the term.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2011 (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.