Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 16

Christine Smith (libertarian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Accidentally deleted it 71.175.31.106 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as nothing to do here. Article was created as a redirect, deleted under CSD R1 (invalid redirect), and recreated as a proper redirect since. -- Kesh (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Insitu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

dont-recall-or-see-copyrighted B.rad (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion and Speedy close - Copyvios are non-negotiable. -- Kesh (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - copyvio of http://www.insitu.com/history PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Swift's printers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Doesn't appear to neatly fit into a speedy delete criterion, and probably worthy of a discussion at WP:AFD.--PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment As the original creator, the page was made to put forth the legal disputes that were involved over the printing of Swift's books, from the transfer of the original copyright, to the lawsuit based on the original copyright, to the Irish constitutional claims based on Faulkner publishing vs Motte publishing, and Harding's arrests for publishing material and how Swift used his arrest as an opportunity to make another move in support of Irish constitutional freedom. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• What is your goal? Do you want this back in article space right now, as it was? We already know there's at least one editor who considers it unsuitable. Do you just want it temporarily somewhere (not in article space) for further work? The latter we can just do; no deletion review needed. Friday (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was working on it while working on two other pages. The page was there to place corresponding, but not pertinent, legal issues surrounding some works. The page was designed to also allow there to be links to people who are not necessarily notable, or at least notable on their own. For example, Faulkner and Motte are notable because their legal copyright battle became an issue over Irish independence and the right to publish intellectual material, but this is based on what they printed and not, necessarily, on themselves. If you look here, you will see that the page would have an extended detail on that matter which extended beyond the Drapier's Letters. However, user:Geogre has made it abundantly clear how he feels about my edits, and deleted my page to start his own. It would seem that any work of mine in the area will only be met with hostility, and the restoration of the page (while being good for those wanting information related to the publication disputes and issue constitutional theory in regards to copyright issues) will only bring me more grief, as can be testified by the various people who have supported Geogre's attacks upon my person. As for material on the issue, I have three books that devote chapters on the later legal dispute and other copyright issues. There is also many legal interpretations made on the case and what kind of impact it had for copyright law and the Irish independence issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Close discussion- even the author does not want this page back. What is there for deletion review to do? This is not the complaints department. Friday (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, thats not what I said. I said I do want the page back. I don't want him harassing me over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I've userfied it to User:Ottava Rima/Printers for now. Is this good enough? Can we call this closed? Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a small update on some of my information to the page so that people can have a sense of what the page will eventually turn into. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I must also note at this time that I have more to add, but with the Pope's visit, access to my office and to two of my libraries is currently closed. I will also be attending his speech on education, so I will not be around tomorrow. I will try to add what I can from the few scraps that I have laying around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore and discuss Does not in the least fit into any speedy category. Deleted totally outside of process with the explanation "(Duplicate material in Jonathan Swift and articles on each work" . this is in fact true to a considerable extent, but it needs to be discussed. Not really at afd, on the talk page of the article about a merge. The plans for the article were not evident in the existing draft, which talks only about 4 of the printers in about a paragraph each. But it is not uncontroversial routine housekeeping, and that's the only conceivable speedy category.

I do not think the author actually wants to delete the page, just thinks it's hopeless to try to keep it against the opinion of an admin. Deletions based on the opinion of an admin that an article is not good, without fitting into any of the policies are simply wrong, and we need to say so clearly, and the way to do that is by restoring the article.

Friday, " We already know there's at least one editor who considers it unsuitable." is not a reason for deletion. Your opinion or mine of anyone else's about the suitability of the article is not decisive--speedy cannot be used for controversial deletions of this sort. There are a few thousand articles in WP I have noticed that I consider unsuitable, but don't fit within speedy & aren't worth the trouble of a contested AfD. I could simply delete them all, but of course I would then deserve to be desysopped. DGG (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a fork. It was unforked. This could have happened just as easily without anyone using the delete button. Let's focus less on technicalities and more on content issues. Sure, "one editor considers it unsuitable" is no official reason for deletion. But it may well be a good reason to not just blindly put this stuff back in article space. We're allowed to use our judgement. Friday (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • As Friday says, it's a fork. What's more, it's a fork that doesn't manage to have a tine. I used the "duplicate material" standard for a speedy instead of the more laborious form, but that's because I considered it utterly obvious. This was not "one admin's opinion." This was one admin's judgment that the case was so blindingly clear, and the article's author's statements so obviously at odds with article creation, and the contents so unbelievably null, that it was better to delete as duplicate than to go through a long talk that will result in people asking to "merge," when the material present is actually not even correct. (For only one example, look at Faulkner "born in 1699" in "Swift's printers," when he was born in 1703.) Geogre (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. Joe 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG and list if anyone wants to. The reason for deletion was completely outside accepted practices for admin-discretion speedies, given the summary in the log. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Reasons to endorse: Needless fork trying to get out of a content dispute over OR and UNDUE in the main article. Reasons to overturn and undelete: Process wonkery. Not a tough call, endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you back up those claims with diffs that show I was involved in any content dispute? Or will you admit that you are making such claims because you don't like me based on a history that I can provide and cite with diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a dispute over whether this piece of content should be deleted.. We're here at deletion review because of this and you ask for diffs? Please. This is ruleslawyering of the worst kind. Friday (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Friday, I asked for diffs of the content dispute that I was supposedly involved in and lead to me "forking" the page from another page. That claim is outright absurd, and betrays the intentions of the above user, who should recuse himself for his previous documented uncivil behavior to myself and his history of acting in such a manner with users. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Per Guy—process wonkery at it's simplest. Article wouldn't survive AfD, there's no reason to waste time and red tape by sending it there. It's been userspaced if Ottava Rima wants to make something half decent article, that actually meets some content policies and isn't a fork, out of it. Good luck to him. We don't need an AfD for that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

so do you support letting any admin who cares to delete all articles they think won't survive AfD in their present form? I must mention that this was deleted by the admin in the course of an ongoing dispute over content of related articles. So it isnt only a deletion outside of process, it's using the tools in a contet dispute one is engaged in. The possibility of that happening is exactly why we need process. DGG (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think letting any admin delete anything is a good idea. My reasoning behind endorsing here is that 1) It's been userfied anyway, if he wants to work on it. 2) It would get deleted at AfD. If this was speedy tagged or something, I would support removing that tag and going to AfD. Now that it's already been deleted, I don't think going back to AfD to redelete is necessary, or "worth it". I understand your content dispute comments...that in itself isn't a reason to overturn (since the deletion was correct, IMO), but it could be a problem, and you could go up the DR tree (or just trout slap him) if you thought it necessary, or worth it. I don't think we should undelete for process sake something that will be redeleted at AfD...let him work on it in userspace if he likes. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If this has been userfied then there's no policy or guideline stopping anyone from moving it back into article space, and requiring an AfD. I'm very tempted to do just that. -- Ned Scott 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make this fork any more pointy than it already is, please? -- Kesh (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn: process wonkery my ass (and I'm usually easy to "process wonkery" conclusions). It's a basic tenet of adminship not to delete on a whim—say, because an article doesn't suit your vision, or because you don't like the article creator's style. Is this not as clear-cut as "deletion review" gets? Perhaps it's moot, if the fellow wants to work on it in userspace, but it's an "overturn" in principle. –Outriggr § 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh? Outriggr, would you care to tell me what my "whim" was, or "vision" was? See below. Do not announce my motives. It's a basic tenet of Wikipedia to discuss the edits, not the person. Geogre (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll clarify my "tonish" comment above and explain about "whim". I take single-handed article deletion seriously, and I expect that any administrator will unilaterally delete only the stupidest, most pointless articles. That's not what happened here, so I called it "whim", because it looked like whim to me. If the article is "stupid", it is not stupid in the sense of "Bob is cute (end of article}" or "The Nile is a river (end of article)". No, the question that has to be asked here, and ideally would be asked at "Articles for Deletion" if that had happened, is to determine whether "Swift's printers" is a topic that exists synthetically, "in the literature" as it were, in such a way that Wikipedia could cover it; or whether the article is indeed a "coatrack". That is not the type of decision that is within the purview of "speedy deletion", whether or not the deleting admin is an expert in the area. (Am I wrong?) Now, some more context: the deleter appeared to be in a disagreement with the article creator, and the article creator appeared/appears to be working in good faith in the subject area of the deleted article. In this context especially, is speedy deletion appropriate? Did the deleter ask the article creator what his intent was with the article? Did he communicate that he would submit the article for deletion because he didn't believe the subject had a synthetic existence "in the literature"? No, he appears to have just deleted it. I don't see the communication occurring here, in this, a context that deserves it (the type of communication that the deleter so rightly expounds should occur more in other venues). It was not a speedy deletion candidate. Talk about its synthetic value (its potential as an article, in addition to its current content), take it to AfD, but don't just make it disappear. –Outriggr § 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) [resigned from user:Outrigger]

• Overturn. There was no valid rationale for deletion, period. I may not believe that this would pass AFD, but it certainly fell under no speedy criteria. CSD is not for admins to substitute their judgement for the community, it's a janitorial task to clean up within certain carefully prescribed limitations.--Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion did not meet any CSD, nor was it the result of an XfD. I'm unsure why we are even bothering with DRV in such a clear-cut case. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: Here is the rationale:
  1. The material at the page (name, dates, 'he printed for Swift') was present in several articles. In some cases, there were full biographies of the figures, but, even where none of those existed, that much material was present at each work's article (A Tale of a Tub, Gulliver's Travels) and, of course, the proper place, Jonathan Swift. That is a speedy deletion rationale.
  2. The page was not merely created, but was the target of a redirect he/she put up for every bookseller who didn't have an article.
  3. The article was misnamed. Swift's "printers?" Suppose a college student wanted to know who published Gulliver. Suppose that person doesn't know that he's supposed to go to The Drapier Letters (not Drapier Letters, not The Drapier's Letters) to find the sole link to this page. Would he type in "Swift's printers" in a search box? Printer, publisher, editor, or bookseller? Or would the person simply look at the Swift article?
  4. The article was a lie. These people were not Swift's printers. (John Nutt, not mentioned in this list, was a printer.) They were between publishers and editors and printers.... The relationship is cloudy during this era, which is what makes it important to know what they did and how, which is why putting them in an unsearchable stub is a bad idea.
• Had the article been at AfD, it would have been unbelievably clear. It's an orphan, a glorified stub, and duplicate material. The primary author has said that he created it not to talk about Swift's printers, but rather to talk about one printer. Well, isn't that when you create a biography or a section? Weird. Geogre (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're at WP:DRV, not WP:AFD. What is "unbelievably clear" for one editor might not be seen the same way by another, and we shouldn't assume that people will agree with that point of view (no matter how obvious it might seem to that person). This is why it's so important that we don't delete articles in this way, and it's why we have AfD. This clearly does not meet any CSD, not by a long shot, and you've had personal disputes with the article's author. -- Ned Scott 10:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for orienting me to where I am. I do get lost. It's my judgment and discretion as an administrator that's at stake here, and that was informed by my scholarship, experience, and knowledge of Wikipedia. The rationale above was not an AfD rationale, but the rationale that I used when deciding to delete. This was because "duplicate material" is a speedy delete criterion, and this was duplicate material. It was created as a fork. It was also created, the author says, to talk about only one person, but the author didn't want, apparently, to write a biography (too much research? not enough material available? those are proofs that the material should be discussed at Swift or at the work in question). So, here's someone making a fork for no legitimate reason, and it contains duplicate material. My judgment was that it was speedy delete for duplication. Finally, I have not had "personal disputes" with the article's author. I do not mean that merely literally, either. I have no Wikipedia relationship with the article's author. I think the author is a dunce, but I think lots of people are dunces. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think an article should be deleted. (Have I speedy deleted any article by the people I am assumed to dislike? No? What, in all this time?) The allegation that I have deleted out of vindictiveness is insupportable, insulting, and absurd. Geogre (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have checked at WP:CSD and I do not find any provision for speedy deletion for "duplication" -- except for images and other media, redirects, and foreign language articles. Maybe I missed it, can you give a exact quotation? Sometimes obvious duplicates have been deleted as G6, Housekeeping, but that is limited to " Non-controversial maintenance". DGG (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy and Geogre. No need to waste time on this. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, on principle. I do agree with Folantin above that, the article having been userfied, there is no need for further action here. That said, the original speedy deletion was also obviously inappropriate (I'd very much like to hear which criterion is supposed to have applied), and indeed the proper response, once the article had been deleted and the deletion contested, should have been speedy undeletion on grounds of the issue being evidently not uncontroversial. Sure, the article may have had problems — indeed, some are obvious. It might have qualified for a merge or even just plain redirection, it might not have survived AfD, it might even have succumbed to a simple, well-reasoned {{prod}}. But we do have WP:CSD for a reason, and this was not one of the times for ignoring it — nobody would've died or been sued just because of the article existing for a week longer. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Are we really going to have to go through an AFD that is going to have the exact same outcome? Process for process' sake is a pointless waste of time. AniMate 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

it looks like there is some disagreement here over what the result of the AfD would be. the way to find out is to have it. Even more important is the principle that no administrator can delete unilaterally except as provided by policy. Otherwise we'll have a free for all. Given there are over 1000 active administrators, each with different views, I wonder how much would be left. DGG (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Article has already been userfied, and its current incarnation reads like a POV WP:COATRACK for legal issues that occurred during Swift's career. Overturning at this point would be process for process' sake. Let's let the user work on this, and we can review it afterwards to see if it should be moved back to article space, or deleted fully. -- Kesh (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - The legal issues extended beyond Swift's life, and eventually turned into a constitutional issue based on conflicting copyright laws between Ireland and England. Also, please explain what part of the article is biased when it deals with a conflict between the people that the article is about and has not favored one side or another that was not endorsed by credible and reasonable sources on the matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was biased, I said it was a WP:COATRACK for the legal issues. The article claims to be about one thing ("Swift's printers") and instead goes straight into noting all the arguments over copyright. The premise that the article is about the printers fails, because it really isn't: it's about Swift's opinions and the litigation matters. -- Kesh (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about Swift's opinion in the page at all. I don't know if you have read the same page, but as writer to the page, nothing is stated by Swift except to form basis if he actually gave permission to a publication or not before his death. Furthermore, COATRACK is primarily about biased pages. Hence "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." right there at the top. If you don't see the connection between COATRACK and bias, I really don't know how to respond to you, except to ask you to chose your words in a very different manner. Your ruleslawyering doesn't seem to be backed up by anything you have actually provided. Furthermore, legal issues over printing of material by printers is surely about "printers". If anything, your dispute would be over the name that, surprisingly, is fixed by a simple move. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the pamphlet, Swift argued that Harding was "a poor Man perfectly Innocent.

So, yes, Swift's opinions are part of the article as written. On the second matter, coatracking is often used for biased pages, but the general term applies to anything where the article purports to be about one subject, but really is about another. As you put it: legal issues over printing of material by printers is surely about "printers". However, the entire article is really a setup for the legal issues and not an article about the printers themselves. If it were primarily about the printers, it would be about them, with the legal issues as a small sub-section per WP:UNDUE. That's why this fits the aspect of a coatrack, in my opinion. Most of the article is about "X got arrested" and "Y Legal Battle." If you want to rename it "Copyright issues Swift's works" or something similar, that would help, but the article would need more work to make it clear that this is the focus of the page. And, frankly, I don't see that as necessitating a page of its own; it would easily fit in as a paragraph or two under either Johnathan Swift or articles about the works in question. The bits about people getting arrested are rather tangential to the subject.

Honestly, I have no emotional investment here, but I get the distinct impression you are getting angry over this. My intent was not to upset anyone, but to explain why I feel the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines as of yet. And this discussion is starting to get beyond the intent of DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry? Why? Because I asked you to back up a claim of rules violation? I'm sorry, but demanding evidence is not a sign of "anger". However, common decency and respect would call for someone to provide evidence to back up such claims before making them. As I have already demonstrated, your claims were patently false and based on a misunderstanding of language of a rule, which is demonstrated by your statement above in which you were not talking about "bias" at all. I suggest you strike your comments, instead of accusing people of being "angry" in order to misdirect criticism against your words. And it is not just on copyright issues, but legal issues resulting from the printing of Swift's material. It has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift, except that it was his work. It has everything to do with the printers. It would be completely off topic. The incidents are notable because of their involvement with early Irish constitutional problems, not because of Jonathan Swift. Furthermore, this is a discussion that belongs on that page's talk page, but there is nothing in Wikipedia that shows it shouldn't be there based on Verifiability and Notability guidelines, and those are the two guidelines that apply right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"So, yes, Swift's opinions are part of the article as written." Actually, that was a pamphlet produced anonymously and was propaganda, so you can't make any claims that it is based on his opinion. Sorry. Also, "the general term applies to anything where the article purports to be about one subject" If you read the lead, you would see that it deals with legal issues with printers. So, you can't make that argument either. "However, the entire article is really a setup for the legal issues and not an article about the printers themselves." I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how the beginning has biography about the printers, how they first started printing for Swift, and then the later sections deals with how the printers were involved in legal battles over their role as printers, then, well, I don't think you actually bothered to read what was written. "with the legal issues as a small sub-section " Haha, thats absolutely absurd. UNDUE clearly says to give each based on the amount of publicity and information out there. The other sections have far more about them then the simple biography/background of the other sections, especially in terms of Constitutional theory. Once again you play ruleslawyer without actually using the rule. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your emotional investment in this matter, I see no point in banging my head against the wall of your opinion. My comments stand. -- Kesh (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide proof that I am "emotionally invested", especially when my language has been completely cold and abstract. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This, I think, is a gross misapplication of WP:COATRACK. If indeed he had copyright disputes with his printers, then we should rightfully cover them in an article on the printers. Coatrackery would apply if in mentioning his printers the article descended into or unrelated issues, but I don't see how copyright lawsuits are tangential to his relationship with his printers; I would call them essential. Personally, I would break out the lawsuit as a separate article entirely (with the amount of cited material it could easily stand on its own), but I don't see how it is inappropriate in this article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• overturn I frankly don't care much about the fact that it has been userfied. We don't need deletions like this. Period. DGG explains this very well. I don't know why we have so much trouble getting this into peoples heads. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - Process is important... — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Due process is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia doesn't do due process - we do common sense and clue. The article was clearly unsuitable, so why the hell would you want to restore it? I've done deletions like this before, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, provided the encyclopaedia really does benefit. Moreschi2 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide the community with what aspects you feel make the article "clearly unsuitable"? Because many have already expressed their opinion on the matter, and "why the hell would you want to restore it" is rather condescending and uncivil in regard to their viewpoint. It would seem odd that you would risk offending people without providing anything to back up your own assertions. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Geogre speaks for me in this case. I've had a look at the article, and I agree with his analysis of it. And, again, why the hell would I care about the risk of offending anyone? That is not my concern. Moreschi2 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that procedure and policy about civility don't apply to you? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we deal with things where one person's idea of "common sense and clue" does not agree with that of others? We do it by consensus of the community , which we find by following the rules. We do not get it by arbitrary action the way one person thinks right, and hope that others will let him get away with it regardless. This was deleted by an admin who is continuing to quote a speedy deletion reason that does not exist: "This was because "duplicate material" is a speedy delete criterion". If a candidate at AfD said that, they would not be given the tools. I am really startled by the endorses here, because this is a clear violation of the basic deletion policy. I do not defend the article. I continue to comment here because i believe that actions like this deletion must be stopped, or policy degenerates into who has the strongest friends. WP IS NOT AN ANARCHY DGG (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn per Dhartung. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Due process is required. We can't work on common sense because common sense doesn't exist. My common sense is that this shouldn't be deleted in the first place. At all. Other people have different notions of what should be obvious. We have to find consensus for the extreme act of deleting something, which is why we have XfDs. With luck, the use of A7 will decline over time as people check for sources and try to improve rather than delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. Not a clear-cut deletion and not qualified for speedy. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Susan Hubbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page "Susan Hubbard" was deleted and is now protected from recreation due to "repeated recreation of page about a non-notable person," yet the America author Susan Hubbard does not meet the criteria of a "non-notable" person. She has written over 26 award-winning short stories and essays, has published 6 books (2 of which are recently published by Simon and Schuster) and is currently professor of creative writing at the University of Central Florida. She is quite notable, and has received teaching awards from Syracuse University, Cornell University, the University of Central Florida, and the South Atlantic Adminstrators of Departments of English. She has been a Writer in Residence at Pitzer College, Claremont, CA; Georgia State College and University, Milledgeville, GA; and The National Writer's Voice, Tampa. She has been awarded residencies at Yaddo, the Djerassi Resident Artists Project, the Virginia Center for Creative Arts, and Cill Rialaig. How is Susan Hubbard "non-notable?" Authors of less achievement have pages on Wikipedia.

Here are some links to prove her notability:

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Susan+Hubbard&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en http://www.cce.umn.edu/mentoring/mentors/SHubbard.html http://www.simonsays.com/content/destination.cfm?tab=1&pid=484733—Preceding unsigned comment added by BillShuput (talk • contribs)

• Overturn the latest three deletions not related to copyvio that all mention numerous book and journal publications and an award.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn It is hard to explain how the admins who deleted it thought an article which asserted awards and multiple published books in multiple countries had no indication of notability. (My guess is that they saw the previous deletions and did not look carefully enough). DGG (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - the standard for A7 deletions is whether the article indicates importance, not whether it proves notability. The mention of the various awards is enough to preclude an A7 speedy deletion, as should be the presence of multiple references (even though they do not seem to be enough to prove notability, they should be enough to prevent speedy deletion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, because the five different admins who have deleted this all apparently saw that the awards are not actually important ones, that the major contributor is a single purpose account, that the same single purpose account created the article six times, three times as a copyvio direct form the subject's site, and that any way you paint it, we are being spammed here. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• omgfivedifferentadmins do not speak for the community. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• OMG!! Five people, mops or not, does not consensus make. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The award she won is apparently worthy of its own page Janet Heidinger Kafka Prize, and she has multiple books published and translated (I even found translations in my Dutch library, not of high literature, but still..) The fact that creator is desperate to get the page, can't be a reason to delete it. Joost 99 (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn does not meet CSD. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn; seems to have met the level of demanding an AfD. Guy, we don't delete something because any number of admins have deleted it; we have to have a reason going beyond "I said so".--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Does not meet CSD. I also agree with Ned Scott: the five admins who deleted the page do not speak for the community. Furthermore, if we go the route of how many admins support what, in addition to the other users supporting an overturn of the deletion, there are three other admins who feel that deletion was inappropriate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Ned Scott. "omgfivedifferentadmins do not speak for the community." Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and slap deleting admin with a trout. Subject doesn't come anywhere near a speedy. Lots of sources, reviews, awards, and essays regarding the subject available from which to write an article. Should have been improved, not deleted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)