Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Demcak

Andrew Demcak

Andrew Demcak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

I declined a G2 on this, which made no sense, though G11 might have been meant. In any event, upon investigation I have not been able to confirm any notability. Three Candles Press the publisher of one of his books and which gave him the writing award listed in the article (website), are a print on demand publisher, actually saying so on their website (many of the same, like Publish America, deny they are). The other publishers listed appear to be vanity presses or e-zines or something other than traditional presses. I have looked through Google book results and news results and have not found any third-party independent reliable sources discussing him substantively. The best claim to notability in the article is that he was "featured at The Best American Poetry." I'm not sure what "featured" here means, but searching for him in connection with them, I have only found what appears to be a sprawling astroturfing campaign. There is also a claim that his poetry is taught at two universities. The reference for the claim is to a dead link. In any event, if no reliable independent third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that dead link would have helped anyway. From what I can make out, it would probably not count as a truly independent source. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the G2 decline. G11 would have been more appropriate. Based on Google searches that have turned up little of note, combined with an astroturfing campaign, I believe Wikipedia should delete this article. LiteralLit (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment BlazeVOX (another of his publishers according to goodreads although he doesn't appear to be on their authors list) don't give the impression of being self-publishing, but with Ezra Pound as editor-in-chief anything could happen... (They describe themselves as publishers of 'weird little books'. I like it.) Casa Menendez Press I can find nothing about - except that Demcak's name seems to surface along with a mention of his latest work whenever you find them on a certain well known search engine. Print on demand isn't always self-publishing - even big publishers can use it for lower demand works. I don't think Three Candles or BlazeVOX are self-publishing - but could be wrong. Casa Menendez could be the subject himself or he's their only client. Until you get to the level of Andrew Motion or Seamus Heaney (or even Pam Ayres...) notability is not always easy to show proof for. There certainly seems to be a concerted campaign going on (which I an not knocking him for - one has to get one's work noticed). It does make it harder to find the wheat amongst the chaff - the wheat being what complies with WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It has good enough sources and the article shows his notability. Parker1297 ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)