Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Godbey

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. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Godbey

Prodded for deletion by User:Thomas.macmillan as simply "non-notable writer" and deprodded (by a serial deprodder). The alleged book she supposedly had published does not even have an ISBN code (only an Amazon ASIN), so is not considered to be even as notable as a self-published book (which is to say less than not notable at all). No indication of any notability as an individual. Fails WP:AUTHOR quite dramatically. Delete DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Speedy Close. The nominator throws a lot of nasty invective around. But invective is no substitute for research. Just searching Wikipedia reveals that Godbey has won a notable poetry award, and other sites [1] give reasonably strong indivations of notability. By the way, the nominator's comment about a "self-published book" is also nonsense; its publisher, Slipstream, is the book-publishing arm of an apparently notable magazine. The nomination itself amounts to a BLP violation; the nominator would improve the Wikipedia environment by searching harder for evidence of notability rather than obsessing on "serial deprodders." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are amazingly hostile here. I disagree with you, but I'm not going to through the personal attacks at you that you somehow feel you can get away with. It's not a "book-publishing arm" if the item produced doesn't even have an ISBN. "Pamphlet-publishing arm" maybe. I don't find these things to be indications of notability, and the idea that what I said is a BLP violation is just odd. You don't need to attack other people to try to make your point, and, in fact, it doesn't look like you have much of a point other than making the attack. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC):::And, incidentally, the serial deprodder you say I shouldn't worry about turned out to be (as predicted) a sock of a banned user whose offenses were disrupting the deletion processes on this site through socks. If the serial deprodder hadn't deleted this it would already be deleted as it should have been by now. 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Slipstream, they publish a couple of issues a year, mainly reader submitted entries. Technically that is "published", but the payment is a copy of the issue your poem appears in. You'd make a better case of being a notable author by having a humorous anecdote from work "published" in Reader's Digest...and get paid more too. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that being published by Slipstream demonstrated notability, just that it was not "self-publishing." Now why do you disregard the notable poetry award, given by an academic institution under the auspices of a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet and one-time Poet Laureate Consultant to the Library of Congress, among many other honors (the LoC position, often informally referred to as the US Poet Laureate) was shared with W.S. Merwin, indicating the stature of the position). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Needs coverage from independent/third-party sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation so the opinions based on lack of sourcing are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a single source about a trivial poetry award from a tiny college, when the poetry award itself isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not mean "opinions on lack of sourcing are obsolete". You should be careful not to intentionally or unintentionally deceive anyone with such comments. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly unnotable per WP:AUTHOR. Eusebeus (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (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.