Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Shaidle

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 (non-admin closure). Chetblong^{T C} 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Shaidle[edit]

Another one of Sheridan College's "Notable" alumni. May not meet WP:BIO.BLACKKITE 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Published author and journalist. (Also, at the time of my vote, no actual explanation given for deletion, save for WP:SARCASM) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being published does not necessarily equal notability. Reason for deletion is, of course, possible failure to meet WP:BIO - I have clarified. Sarcasm is unfortunately easy to slip into when dealing with huge swathes of COI; of course some actually notable people will be involved here, and of course if that is the case, one would hope they'd be kept. BLACKKITE 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Shawn that the nomination is lacking. However, I disagree with him that being published = notability. If that were the case, I would have created an article on my mom long ago. In this case, WP:BIO suggests that receiving "significant critical attention" or "significant recognized awards or honours" confers notability. Shaidle was a finalist for the Governor General's Awards, which is a very significant literary award in this country (I have no idea if the Church Press awards are recognized or are notable). It would be a slam dunk if she had won the award, but being a finalist is nothing to sneeze at. Therefore, I am inclined to lean towards keep. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - until the nominator adopts a non-cryptic nomination: avoid cryptic language. Tarinth (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D12000 added a reference, and I added a few as well. There are several write-ups about Shaidle and her books in major Canadian newspapers. There's enough for WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not tell from the links how extensive the reference to her is--some of them seem from their title to be group articles--please provide some information on whether the coverage is significant.DGG (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Giggles and God-stuff" article is 142 words and talks only about her and her blog. The "Poet relates sacred images" article discusses only her book Lobotomy Magnificat. The "Five poets in search of a prize" article is (not surprisingly) 1/5 about Shaidle and her book. Hope that helps, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a finalist for the GG award is a big deal in Canlit. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - published author. Finalist for GG Award meets the WP:BIO "significant critical attention" criteria. Mention of Sheridan College alumni casts some doubt on the nominator's motivations. Franamax (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is part of a batch of AfDs targeting several Sheridan College related articles. Dl2000 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above - non-trivial secondary attention is established, with significant body of non self-pub work. Dl2000 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.