Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanna Compton

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Compton

I don't think one obscure publication of poems last month constitutes fame. --JHMM13 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup mainly Wikify. Published one book, edited another as well as a literary journal. Over 80,000 Google hits for Shanna Compton with first pages being about her see [1]. Three returns on Google books see [2].

Six Google scholar results as well see [3]. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per Capitalistroadster. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a liitle tidying Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A small press publication and local readings are all I see. The fact that she writes about gamez seems to be why she's getting an article. There are hundreds of poets who have no article on Wikipedia, and I don't see her as being among the ranks of notable poets yet. (I.e. a person can't just be a member of a class, but must be outstanding among that class, so the average professor is not notable, and the average poet isn't notable, and the average nuclear engineer isn't notable, etc.) Geogre 14:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. per Geogre. Logophile 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. Renata3 22:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's not true that "a person can't just be a member of a class, but must be outstanding among that class"; many classes of people admit all their members into Wikipedia. Presidents, for example. While published poets is not a class where all members of are automatically eligible, it's much more common than, say, the category of bums. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" is the standard at WP:BIO, and I think she's probably passed that line.--Prosfilaes 09:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While they may be small presses, neither Winnow Press nor Soft Skull appear to be vanity presses. Her books are listed on both B&N and Amazon (though B&N has her poem collection as used only). She appears to meet the criteria of WP:BIO as best as can be determined without access to hard sells numbers. -- JLaTondre 17:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It looks like the majority of her work was within the last few years -- however that is more than the original AFD entry claims. Book entries on Google did it for me though. HackJandy 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just notable enough for me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Geogre. Stifle 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Zordrac 13:15, 1 December 2005 (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.