Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Phillips
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carl Phillips
Also listed as still under construction, but also seems to be insufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable. Lots of awards. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Several published works, 32 thousand google hits for ["Carl Phillips" poet], cited by numerous articles. Clearly notable. Wjhonson 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Meets WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo Θ 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Enough publications and awards. Dlyons493 Talk 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just looking down the AfD list - is Nlu focusing on Gay writers? Dlyons493 Talk 11:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I was cleaning up old {{underconstruction}} links, and came up on a group of (what I felt) were insufficiently attested authors. You can't seriously look at the states of the articles previously and say that they had, as written, sufficient notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was just wondering where the group had appeared from. That explains it, thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I admit I made some quick entries in a few cases, just to start the ball rolling. Some of the people are actually quite notable, others are maybe... questionable. I was just trying to get the info I had out there, so others could expand it. Some of these could stand a lookup in Gale's Authors online, I just haven't gotten around to it. Wjhonson 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was just wondering where the group had appeared from. That explains it, thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I was cleaning up old {{underconstruction}} links, and came up on a group of (what I felt) were insufficiently attested authors. You can't seriously look at the states of the articles previously and say that they had, as written, sufficient notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Appears to be sufficiently notable to stave off a delete vote for me, but I would question TruthbringerToronto's assertion that he has won "lots of awards": I count 3. Ohconfucius 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per most everyone. RFerreira 21:44, 21 August 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.
