Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Laura McCullough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

the poet chimes in

Hey, this is supposedly a democratic thing, and when I was told I was non-notable and the page on me as a writer ought to be deleted, I sent a list of links to publishers, journals, etc. that support my creds. Then it was clear I was out of my depth and I certainly don't know how to make this page whatever someone is saying it isn't, and I noticed that the people making this decision aren't poets, so I posted on Facebook--where I am connected to thousands of writers (who are not my personal friends, guys; they are professional contacts of poets, writers, etc.--though I certainly have friends in there, too), and I explained what was happening, and asked--since the wiki page asks people to go on and comment--to go comment if they can(most don't know how), because they know me professionally. NO ONE was coerced, and no one has said anything unreasonable, except some of you (not all) are calling them sockpuppets or something--whatever that means, and discounting fans, readers of my work, professional peers. One of you posted very reasonably noting that everything on the Wiki page is factual. Nothing was libelous, promotional, etc. In fact, the list I sent of my creds in response to this assault today, is only partial. And if others I know professionally now go on and edit and fill in--a couple told me they intend to--I haven't looked this evening--isn't that what is supposed to happen? I don't understand why I am being reviled, nor why people who are trying to bring other perspectives to this are being reviled. A lot of also can not believe there is an American Women Poets page, and why we are not all under the American Poets page. This is has been going on at least a year, and in the Po-biz world, it's really made Wikipedia look anti-woman, so it's reasonable we should be feeling skeptical when a female mid-career poet is being attacked when the page on her looks like a 1000 others. Not sure what else I can say, but I've tried to be honest here. Not sure if I am supposed to do something else. It seemed reasonable of me to tell people who follow me or are connected to me on social media what is going on and that the page has been questioned and they should weigh in. Thanks. Lmccullough (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lmccullough. You seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is. I'll try and clear up a few of your confusions.
You say "this is supposedly a democratic thing". Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are made through editing, discussion and consensus, not voting.
The Wikipedia page on sock puppets explains in detail what a sock puppet is. I understand that your intentions were honest, but petitioning others (directly or indirectly) to support your view isn't encouraged, and weakens your position.
We understand that many living poets are minor. I'm afraid this means that many - most - poets (alive or dead) do not meet Wikipedia's
notability standards
. We can't make a special exception for you or any other minor poet.
You are "being reviled", in your words, because you broke several Wikipedia rules. You created a conflict of interest by editing a Wikipedia page about yourself. You protested the deletion by making serious accusations of sexism with no evidence. Then you got your friends to post in your defence.
Instead of perpetuating this conflict, which you will certainly lose because of your various demonstrable breaches of conduct, you should produce
reliable sources
that prove your notability. This is the only thing that makes any Wikipedia article worthwhile, whether it's about poets or astronauts. If you want to preserve the article about you, your only hope is to demonstrate your notability with reliable sources.
However, I strongly recommend just walking away from the article, due to the conflict of interest. You're welcome to edit other articles that aren't connected to you.
Finally, and I can't emphasise this enough, the issue of your gender has never come up at any point except from you. No one cares. Honestly.
talk) 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It's unfortunate we can't send new editors who screw up to a nice video that explains everything instead of a lot of rather hostile sounding messages about all the rules that were broken. I was lucky no one paid much attention to all the rules I broke my first few months - including fixing up a terrible bio of me. Plus I think some editors may have given her a harder time than if she'd been a guy who made the same mistakes. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - There appear to be plenty of women listed on the
American poets page. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment – Ms McCullough, when Popcornduff says "Instead of perpetuating this conflict, which you will certainly lose..." I think this means "lose" in terms of
WP:Wikipedian behavior. I hope (and believe) the Wikipedia community will evaluate the article in terms of its topic notability and not in terms of what you have done. Recruiting via Facebook was not advisable because the various people who responded came in to support you and not to improve the project/Wikipedia. As a result their views will not hold much weight. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that is what I meant, thanks. Sorry, I shouldn't have used such fighting talk!
talk) 10:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Carolmooredc: The comment that we "may have given her a harder time than if she'd been a guy" is ridiculous. COI editors always get a very hard time here whatever their gender. Most of the time we don't even know what the editor's gender is. Even when COI editors are trying very hard to abide by the guidelines they are often still met with hostility. This editor is doing just the opposite of following the guidelines. Whipping up a meatpuppet army on Facebook is certainly not going to get tea and sympathy and a male editor doing that would hardly have done any better. The nominator of this AfD, OrangeMike, is well known for his crusading stance against spammy articles and frequently summarily deletes articles written by COI editors when they come to the help desk to complain about someone messing with "their" article. By his standards bringing the issue to AfD instead is treating Ms McCullough lightly. She, on the other hand, has entirely abused the opportunity given to her. SpinningSpark 11:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we move discussions from talk into the main discussion? Just so we can slam Newbies even more. Disgusting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I moved it over here because a previous editor had done the same thing; I assumed that was what you're meant to do. There was no malicious intent. Guess I'm the newbie in this case? (I must confess I'm not sure what the "talk" page is for when it corresponds to discussion articles.)
talk) 13:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I would support moving it back. This discussion is really about the conduct of the AfD, not about the merits of the article as such. Perhaps
Popcornduff will self-revert? My previous revert was for a different edit that clearly was meant for the deletion debate itself. SpinningSpark 13:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
These complaints about moving the talk page discussion are not helpful. Note that the page was started by an SPA. McCullough herself chimed in. AFDs themselves are discussions. So now we have a discussion about a discussion. And guess what? My comments, above, were "refactored" by moving them here. E.g. one of my comments was for the benefit of the SPAs. (I am moving it back.) Same may be said for Anne Delong's comment. Jez – Popcornduff did the right thing. An alternative would have been to move it to Lmmullough's user talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well you indented your comment to this thread so you can hardly blame Popcornduff for that mistake. You complain that your comment has been refactored (actually, it was kept in exact relation to the thread you inserted it in) but seem perfectly ok to refactor the OPs comment into a thread she never intended it for. SpinningSpark 14:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining that my comment was refactored, which is why I used quotes. This discussion about where newbies posting in the wrong or right spot, and then moving the comments, and then block quoting the comments, and then moving them back is simply unnecessary drama. Let's put OP's comments (and this followup) on her talk page. They are off-topic from the merits of the AFD, so moving them there is appropriate per
WP:TPOC. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_McCullough&oldid=1080380698"