Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskia Boggs
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 was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saskia Boggs[edit]
- Saskia Boggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The subject of this article does not seem to meet the notability requirement for authors. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article certainly doesn't assert any notability, and the complete absence of citations leads me to the same conclusion as the nominator. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being a contributor to an anthology (that may or may not be notable) is certainly not notable. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No verifiable sources and dubious claims of notability.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The creator of the article has been trying to manipulate the process, removing the original prod. That's about as boldly dishonest as one can get on Wikipedia. As for the article, having one piece published in an anthology does not make a writer notable. Finally, please note that the article related to this one has already been deleted [1]. Qworty (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Creators of articles are perfectly entitled to remove and challenge prods, there's nothing dishonest about that. Admittedly they should give their reasons though! Paulbrock (talk) 03:07, 21 April 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.