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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user removed the speedy delete tag, but this biography makes no assertion of notability. PC78 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article lacks information on the subject's notability, the reference provided and a google search show him to be a poet with multiple awards and six collections to his credit. Victoriagirl 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Expand upon the article, assert the poet's notability, and you'll be all set. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if it counts, for I'm the guy who removed the speedy) I have just added the list of the recent10 or so of his 24 books, the more important of his awards, and a selection of a dozen reviews for his two most-reviewd books of poetry and book of criticism. I have also added that he holds a named chair at FSU, but I left out the University awards. I do not think the nom for AfD was wrong, because this material was not in the original skimpy article. However, the original article stated he was a professor at FSU; though that is not enough N for WP, it is enough of an assertion so that a speedy was not justified. DGG 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for next time, please use ((hangon)) instead of removing the speedy. Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the template "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: "hangon" --if I understand it correctly-- then anyone other than the author who thinks the article has merit or potential merit can and should remove the speedy--it is just the author who is limited to "hangon". DGG 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep especially after DGG's improvements (although I'm not too keen on the brief quotes about the books). The article as it now stands shows him to be more notable than most of the American poets we have biography articles about (roughly 1,400 of 'em). Noroton 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong AbstainCman 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just took a look at the "What links here" feature for Kirby (I had to actually go to the other David Kirby page to do it right) and found he'd won a few more awards, so I put those in. Getting into The Best American Poetry series three times in five years is very, very good, and being a finalist for the Griffin Poetry Prize, one of the most prestigious in North America, is also very good. I'd suggest to anyone thinking of nominating a poet for deletion that they check the "What links here" feature and do a Google search. It doesn't take long. I doubt there are more than 200 living American poets who have as good a record at awards and honors, which doesn't necessarily make him one of the best 200 poets in the country, but it damn well shows he's notable. Noroton 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made by User:DGG (that's a long list of awards, publications, and interviews). Thank you, Black Falcon 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple awards, multiple independent sources, seems like a clear WP:BIO pass without even having to resort to the more specific academic proposed guidelines. —David Eppstein 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an easy keep now with those sources and awards. Good work! — brighterorange (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. In case I didn't make it clear before, it wasn't the notability of the person that I was questioning, merely the complete lack of any meaningful content in the article. But it looks much better now, and I'm happy to keep. PC78 16:07, 1 March 2007 (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.