Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Archer

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. This is a tough one. There are good arguments made on both the keep and delete side (exactly one each, actually) and neither seems to overwhelm the other. I fear that WP:BIO may miss its mark on this kind of article, dealing with an author publishing before the advent of the mass media, althought it seems undeniable that the person hasn't made a widely recognized contribution to their field. A combination of facts tips me away from delete: that we are only barely over the two-thirds level that is oft-used (although there are an unusually high number of deleters) and that, on the assumption the article is not a work of fiction, the presence of the address as of 1909 (!) is a strong indicator that, somewhere out there, is a source from which The CA Birthday Book has taken its material. (Incidentally, the copyright for the Birthday book says that it is public domain in the US, so that's ok.) -Splash^talk 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Archer

This article seems to be just copied out of "The California Birthday Book" of 1906. No references in the standard Gale databases, Chadwick's Literature Online, no NY Times obit, no relevant google hits as far as I could tell. Not sure if this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and I certainly don't think this single reference is enough to sustain one. Delete. Gamaliel 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing notable here. Ruby 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- I'd need more evidence that this is an article of verifiable importance. NorseOdin 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I couldn't reasonably expect a lot on Google for an obscure turn-of-the-century poet. I did manage to at least verify that her book Little Poems is real. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Starblind. --King of All the Franks 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable, somewhat notable. Page needs wikifying. Marskell 09:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment do we need to know her box number? It's not like she's going to answer post. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Varifiable, needs a clean up or some sort - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: borderline verifiable, but without more information it is impossible to establish notablility. WP:BIO test is 'Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?' The book copy at [1] is a numbered subscriber copy, indicating a very small print run, and none of her books are in the Library of Congress (as far as I could tell); essentially, then, she had no impact or contribution at all, which is why information about her is hard to find today. - squibix 14:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Squibix -Amazon10x 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There doesn't seem to be enough info on the person at the moment to warrant keeping this article alive. The fact it hasn't been edited in a year doesn't suggest it will be expanded anytime soon either. -Spartanfox86 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable article. --COA 20:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Squib. Eusebeus 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per squibix. -R. fiend 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd say keep it if it was new, but it's had over a year to grow and it hasn't expanded in content. - dharmabum (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn & unexpandable. Renata 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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.