Talk:Foetry.com

This article was nominated for deletion on October 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Websites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale for Keeping article Foetry.com (why this is not Wikispam)

The need for a Foetry.com article was prompted, initially, by an excess of information begin provided on the Jorie Graham page. In explaining the controversy that involved her and the website, too much background information on the website was being included. As an entity which has been covered in various newspapers and scholarly journals, it made sense to me to create an article on Foetry.com itself, then add a link from Jorie Graham's page here. Now, this is a far cry from creating the article and then linking from a great number of poets to this page, thus I doubt it really qualifies as Wikispam.

While the article is short, I hardly think that it qualifies as an advertisement at this point. I've included a Criticisms section which goes so far as to say that Foetry.com is, in the eyes of some observers, failing to do what it claims. To be honest, both the Successful Campaigns and Criticisms sections could use bolstering, and outside sources for both exist (I will happily turn the text of the various newspapers and journals that have written about Foetry.com into links if appropriate for reasons of verifiability). This is a beginning stage for the article.

The language is fairly neutral, neither fawning over nor utterly condemning the actions of Foetry.com. I see nothing of advertising in it.

I would greatly appreciate Admin feedback on these issues, and if there is something I haven't considered, I will happily dialogue.ProfJeFF 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin feedback

I reviewed the article and assess that it does not meet the speedy criteria for blatant advertising. I've left a suggestion for improvement on the creator's talk page. If an editor feels that the article should be deleted, please use the WP:Articles for deletion (AFD) process. — ERcheck (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting User:Itchybahn's edits

Itchybahn made a massive change under the guise of updating "outdated copy." While a certain amount of changes were in fact updates to outdated information - such as the fact that Foetry.com is no longer operating - the vast majority of this user's text is POV argumentation against Foetry.com. Now, don't get me wrong, there were a lot of problems with the site and the way it handled its "mission." But the manner in which User:Itchybahn went about changing the article is contrary to the way things work at Wikipedia - the reasons range from POV to no-original-research. I'm reverting Itchybahn's edits, keeping the note that Foetry.com is dead. If anyone can find outside sources, besides the ones that were already cited in the article, supporting Itchybahn's assertions, go for it. ProfJeFF (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jorie Graham Rule"

My thanks to Geoffrey.landis for trying to find a citation on the so-called "Jorie Graham Rule." Unfortunately, the Boston Globe article points only to Foetry.com claiming that this term exists, and the Foetry.com page has no backup for its claim. That is to say, the trail stops dead at Foetry. No examples of who the "many" that use this term are, etc. If anybody from the old site can point to a non-Foetry source that actually uses this term, I can believe it. In the meantime, I don't think we've met the burden of proof. ProfJeFF (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added three more citations, one to the Guardian article, and then a couple to people using the term in blogs as examples of "many". If that's not enough, let me know how many citations you think you need. (I also just changed two subheadings to a headings here, this clarifies the table of contents) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Guardian and other pages. I should point out that it wasn't a matter of "how many" citations - I'm not trying to be petty and combative - it was a matter of "where from." The Boston Globe article specifically said that it was Foetry that referred to this phenomenon as the Jorie Graham rule. In neither case was there an external source, a non-Foetry source, that used the term. The Guardian article uses the term without specifically tying it back to Foetry.com, and the two blog posts show, as far as I'm concerned, that other people used the term on their own. Thanks for fixing that up (I'm actually tempted to edit out the Globe and Foetry citations, what do you think?) ProfJeFF (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete the Globe or Foetry citations. Whether Foetry originated the term, or is merely repeating usage that originated elsewhere, the citation to the usage seems ok either way. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll try this another way. Foetry claimed that the term was in use in the publishing industry, not attributing invention of the term to itself. It acted as though it was conveying information as a neutral party. However, prior to your last three citations, I didn't see any evidence of that. I saw evidence that Foetry used the term, and that the Globe said Foetry used the term, but neither of those two examples showed that the term had been used as Foetry said it was. If Foetry just said that it invented the term, and then the term caught on in the publishing world, I would have no problem. But since Foetry explicitly looked outside itself for the use and apparent origin of the term, I felt it necessary to show that someone was using it in that way. ProfJeFF (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foetry.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]