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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mehigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Leesome (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bio fails to qualify under the guidelines [1]. It appears to be generated by the author himself, who has published one small book of poetry with one small press. The book and its author have failed to achieve any degree of notability that would justify an article. Leesome (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is some claim to notability there, but not enough per WP:BIO. One book of poetry isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. gets a fair amount of ghits, but no signifacant coverage by reliable secondary sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A single book of poetry does not equal "notable." Chimpgurl (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many books did Thomas Chatterton write? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to delete! I wrote the following at Leesome's user page: I'm the subject, but not the author, of the article, Joshua Mehigan. It may be of use to you to have it confirmed that the article would have to have been written by someone who knows me personally. (The contemporary poetry world is tiny.) I'm probably aware of everything that's been published about me, and nothing's ever said who my teachers were. I'm certainly content to have the article deleted! There are great writers with no entry whatsoever. I have to add that it's mortifying to have it suggested in a link from the article that I posted it. Joshua Mehigan jmehigan@earthlink.net Jmehigan1 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• !!! Well--I can imagine my input could be considered invalid, but I wanted to mention something else. It may be unbecoming to write it, but I don't know who else would. I was looking through the Wikipedia criteria for "notability," and discovered that I think I may actually meet them. That is, I've "been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" by good magazines and in legit critical books. It's just a point of pride, since I stand accused of not being notable! Ha. All the same, I don't feel notable, so it's a technicality, I guess. I can't imagine anyone really visits the article.Jmehigan1 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The above two posts seem more evidence that this person authored his own entry and therefore the entry should be deleted. Chimpgurl (talk)
• Not sure what I can say to that sort of reasoning. My second post was (mainly) supposed to be funny. As I said, please feel free to delete . . . Jmehigan1 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (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.