Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Arturo Abreu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Arturo Abreu

Manuel Arturo Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No claim of notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

delete Not covered in mainstream press of at least a regional interest. The style smells of general promotional intentions and I am getting a general sense that sources are scavenged to justify what the proponents want to present rather than writing about subject around high depth coverage in high quality sources with intended audience base spanning regionally or wider.Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC). dunno, maybe the cumulative impact of so many blogs, small online zines, grants.... notability still looks marginal to me, but I'm gonna back off without opining further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I have added sources that show that his work has been the subject of critical attention. Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing is still minor, non-bluelinked websites.
  WP:SIGCOV to this page and ping me, I will reconsider. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is all I have for now. I don't see a requirement in SIGCOV that the publications must have their own article, only that they are reliable and independent of the subject, which I think is the case here. FWIW, I have no connection to the subject whatsoever, and before I noticed this AfD, I had never heard of Abreu. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelinked sites are certainly not required, but bluelinking does make it easier for editors to sort out

WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• revisited, still skeptical. Many of the links are to websites. I clicked one that I could identify, Vulture, a site run by
  New York Magazine for arts coverage, A ‘Retrospective’ for Emerging Artists in Bushwick’s Former Pfizer Factory, a retrospective for emerging artists is amusing, and it looks good, except that it's kinda PRIMARY since: "says curator and artist manuel arturo abreu"
  . If you organize a group show, and include yourself as one of the artists, and it gets covered in one of several online sites affiliated with a notable magazine, does this support notability?

I also recognized The Stranger (newspaper), but it's just an events listing. possibly not evenan edited list of listings [1]

Then there is the fact that the bio details are sourced to the Academy of American Poets, which is exactly as exclusive as Facebook.

This looks like mere PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, those are exactly the ones I didn't add. I did add: http://thefanzine.com/thinking-beyond-colonial-gender-a-review-of-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/, https://www.aqnb.com/2017/01/30/the-violence-of-naming-and-necessity-reading-through-porous-bodies-in-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/ and https://apogeejournal.org/2017/05/01/yani-robinson-reviews-transtrender-manuel-arturo-abreus-chapbook/. When you say "clicked one that I could identify", does that mean you ignore the sources you don't recognize? Vexations (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It "means" only that assessing notability is time-consuming, hard work, and, therefore, the custom has evolved to sometimes politely request that an editor who seems to be familiar with the subject, and who is arguing to "k" indicate 2 or 3
  WP:RS
  that support notability especially well. Thank you for now doing so.

• Apogee, a small arts journal [2] article Decolonizing the Trans Movement: Frantz Fanon, Manuel Arturo Abreu, and Securing the Futurity of Trans Women of Color.

• . a book review] in AQNB , a very small "editorial platform committed to independent media" [3]

• a book review in [thefanzine.com] thefanzine.com, another small literary magazine.

• It is unclear to me what degree of editorial control these small literary publication have over their contributors, whether reviews are assigned, whether they are edited, whether the writer are paid,, or indeed much about them. This is the problem. Notability for this "artist, poet, and curator" is being quesitoned precisely because the strongest sourcing an editor arguing to keep has been able to bring is reviewa of a single book in three very small, literary zines. This is the kind of sourcing writers have BEFORE they become notable. notable writers get reviews in better-known publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the sources I added are "small" (you've mentioned that five times). I'm not sure what "big enough" would be. As far as I can tell, we have no policy that says a source must have a minimum number of subscribers or have a print version or meet some other quantative measure. I think the sources I have added are independent of the subject and reliable. I'll note for example that Apogee has an editorial staff and does not accept submissions. AQNB has an editorial staff as well, and so does thefanzine. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, sorry, I'm the original editor, and I am a new editor. I included this as a part of an Edit-athon, and I purposely started on it with little information, so that the students who came to the Edit-athon would have one to improve. (However, I ended up editing myself, obviously). I disagree with a lot of the assertions made about the source. Firstly, Academy of American Poets is not "equivalent of Facebook." You have to be solicited to publish a poem with them, and they have requirements including significant previous publications. Once you have been solicited by an editor, the board can still choose to reject your work. So I believe there is significant enough oversight to meet your concerns. And if your poem is published, as abreu's was, as part of Poem-A-Day, the poem is seen by 500,000+ readers.

• Anyone can join the
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You can become a member of Academy of American Poets, but you are not necessarily featured as a poet just because you are. None of the benefits listed include being published by the organization. It's an arts organization, meaning it survives on sponsors, grants, and members, just like an organization like the Met. You can become a member of the Met, but you are not going to be able to have an art show just because you're a member. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this poet is a member. Instead, he is featured as a poet by the Academy of American Poet's program "Poem-A-Day." They have multiple prestigious awards and programs, none of which are connected by membership. https://www.poets.org/academy-american-poets/programs.

• Here is more information about how the process works, which explicitly says that the poems are solicited by the guest curators: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/qa-march-2019-poem-day-guest-editor-maggie-smith
  talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The citation is to his member bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept that having a poem selected for "Poem a Day" is having a poem published. Publishing a poem does not, however, make the poem or the poet notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BOMBARDING the page with such references does not establish notability. I cannot see that anything in the "Awards" section establishes notability. The "Art Show" section is very brief, but it has a PRIMARY problem. Having work in a group show at New Museum would be impressive, except that the only source is Rhizome which is published by the New Museum. I can't get the first link in te=he "Art Shows" section to work, the second cite is to a show that Abreu put together, the 3rd is the Rhizome cite, and the 4th and last is a social media post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The strongest claim to notability appears to be the Rhizome article in the 2nd sentence of the "Writing" subhead in which Rhizome, discusses a phenomenon that "manuel arturo abreu has called Online Imagined Black English, or digital blackface." You can find a discussion of this at Blackface#High_tech. Our page does not reference Abreu.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Philadelphia Tribune, it did not work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It works now. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thanks. But it DOES NOT support the assertion on our page that: "abreu is most well-known for their discussion of the term, 'Online Imagined Black English.'" It shows it that he wrote an essay on a widely discussed topic, and that the essay was mentioned in other essays on the topic. Perhaps
  WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  WP:BLUDGEON this process. --Theredproject (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (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.