Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peach Friedman

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peach Friedman

This page is not authored by the person in question. I know this because I worte it and I am not her. Moreover, while I would agree that she is not reasonably well known, I would argue that very few modern poets are. By the standard in the Wikipedia guidelines, "One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I would say that several original publications would qualify someone to be featured here. Keep. Snowberg

• Vanity page, by the person in question herself. Her brother and uncle are both reasonably well known, but she hardly qualifies. Delete. JZ 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hardcore vanity. Gwk 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Phoenix2 23:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No real claim to notability. The article describes her as an "aspiring poet", which is fine and laudable, but only poets with established careers should have an encyclopedia article.--Pharos 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm the person in question. I did not write the article. My boyfriend did, sweet of him. I would actually have no clue how to figure it out. I am only writing this comment thing right now because he set it up for me. And honestly, I don't really mind whether or not I have a Wikipedia page. It's true that I'm not famous. I have a few poems published and lots of people used to read my blog before it became an exclusive community, but other than being Nat Friedman's sister, I'm not that noteworthy.

BUT! Not in my own defense, rather for the sake of Wikipedia's consistency, there are MANY people with Wikipedia pages who are really not well known at all either, EXCEPT IN TECH FIELDS. It does seem like there's a real slant toward technies in here--so I may be as well known in the field of poetry as another is in the field of Linux, and you guys will only recognize the Linux people. Makes you think, no? I'd ask the question of whether or not you're representing the whole population of people, or just one slice of the big ol' pie. I'm known in certain cirlces. x's and o's, peach.

• Delete reluctantly as a Google search comes up with 61 results. [1] My understanding is that the benchmark for poets includes publication with a circulation of more than 5,000. If it can be shown that she has been published in a publication of reasonable note, then I will vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I'll change my vote if we can get more information on how she's been published. Almafeta 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. Xoloz 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Peach's point is noted, but I think it's that we're letting in too many techies, not too few poets ;-) Dcarrano 23:27, July 17, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.