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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine von Radics[edit]

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

Procedural prod removal so bringing it to AfD. Concern was fails wp:gng and wp:author. Lacks WP:RS as well Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the removal of BLPPROD tags doesn't affect normal PROD, so there was no reason to DEPROD this. Adam9007 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I asked for advice at Editor Assistance. User JohnInDC was of the opinion that this was a case of BLPPROD as FB and twitter are not sources. He advised that "You are correct about the sourcing, but once the PROD is removed by any editor for any reason (I guess, short of vandalism) the PROD process is over and the article must be nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion." Hence we are here Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden: That only applies to normal PROD. It states explicitly here that deBLPPRODed articles can still be PRODded. Adam9007 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be subsequently PRODed, sure, but when the standard PROD is removed it can't be re-added. I don't know whether the BLP PROD here was properly added - or properly removed - but the standard PROD remains a one-shot deal. JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. While we do have some references [1],[2],[3], this is not enough for WP:GNG. (There are trivial mentions here [4] as well). Unfortunately wouldn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR at this time either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit weird !voting delete here though. I actually love her poetry (particularly "For Teenage Girls") and I know she has a decent online following. But here, it all comes down to sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks any sources other than social media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, bit of a worry that article creator's edit comment on creation of this article was "Inserted bio from website". Coolabahapple (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 18 May 2016 (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.