Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fib (poetry)

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. John254 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fib (poetry)[edit]

Basically this article asserts notability but does not sufficiently establish it. The two sources are a blog and a NY times article that uses the blog and blog author as it's source. Fails WP:WEB and WP:BK. Since the article only mentions the one author, it's borderline promotional material. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A quick Google News archive search turns up multiple press mentions including two full New York Times articles.[1][2] about these 0-1-1-2-3-5-8 poems.

So

that's

a good

reason to

keep this article

to read in Wikipedia

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:BK doesn't apply, since it's an article about not a book but a poetic form. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AB. Media coverage is easy to find. Zagalejo^^^ 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AB. Notability has been established. An article has also been posted on poetryfoundation.org, which I have just linked in a new external links section. Aleta (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated by AB. Lawrence Cohen 17:06, 11 December 2007 (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.