Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenn Habel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jenn Habel
- Delete. Fails notability guidelines for people -- articles does not reflect "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" nor does person seem to be part of historical record. (Yes, article reflects one award — not multiple awards — and award itself seems to be non-notable.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Award was not even won by the subject of the article. --DaveG12345 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Alias Flood 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I disagree with all of you. Jenn Habel is known within poetry circles as an up-and-coming poet, and she is married to a pretty significant American novelist. I can add to this article if it will help keep her up here. The article is just skant, is all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerposes (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does your knowledge of her indicate that she would meet those guidelines? — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- well, speaking as a poet, i'd say contemporary poets form a wide fan base and that her chapbook was very well received. she's a known emerging poet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerposes (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts by including four tildes after your remarks — ~~~~. There are plenty of up-and-coming bands, authors, and so on that simply don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Again, if you've got a decent argument for why she meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people (as provided in my link), please let us know — we're not poets, and thus may not be as familiar with Ms. Habel as you. But also be aware that the simple fact that she's good (in your and/or others' eyes) is not sufficient reason in this debate. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. Well, I will leave it up to you. I guess I would consider her a significant poet and to have a significant following in the world of chapbooks and paper arts, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I mean, I've never met her or anything. I know a lot of my colleagues found her book beautiful. She's not as infamous as WS Merwin or Sylvia Plath, but there are so few poetry superstars in the contemporary world...it's not the same as the world of fiction or rock, where there are clear celebrities...I guess, looking at the link you sent me, I consider her to have a fan base. Thanks, I'll leave it to your discretion. Parkerposes 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let me ask you this. One criteria for people's notability is: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Can you provide references of Ms. Habel having received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work? (I know that there's the reference to her semifinalist — but that's not an award, just a placement.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. Well, I will leave it up to you. I guess I would consider her a significant poet and to have a significant following in the world of chapbooks and paper arts, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I mean, I've never met her or anything. I know a lot of my colleagues found her book beautiful. She's not as infamous as WS Merwin or Sylvia Plath, but there are so few poetry superstars in the contemporary world...it's not the same as the world of fiction or rock, where there are clear celebrities...I guess, looking at the link you sent me, I consider her to have a fan base. Thanks, I'll leave it to your discretion. Parkerposes 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts by including four tildes after your remarks — ~~~~. There are plenty of up-and-coming bands, authors, and so on that simply don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Again, if you've got a decent argument for why she meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people (as provided in my link), please let us know — we're not poets, and thus may not be as familiar with Ms. Habel as you. But also be aware that the simple fact that she's good (in your and/or others' eyes) is not sufficient reason in this debate. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- well, speaking as a poet, i'd say contemporary poets form a wide fan base and that her chapbook was very well received. she's a known emerging poet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerposes (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does your knowledge of her indicate that she would meet those guidelines? — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 July 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.
