Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Lenier (2nd nomination)

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Lenier[edit]

Poet who has garnered almost no media attention, yet is "superior to Shakespeare", "better than Ted Hughes", and "a much bigger thing than Sylvia Plath". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I can't do anything with it right now, but there is some evidence that she's republished and anthologized: [1]. I cut some fluff from the article. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--though somewhat weakly. Two books of poems, reviews of which I haven't been able to find (the Daily Mirror archive is inaccessible to me; the MLA has nothing, but I haven't tried JSTOR and EAI yet), but, most importantly for our purposes, a full-length article on her in the Washington Post (not bad for a then-25 year old British grad student), a poem anthologized, and two mentions in scholarly books (a mid-length discussion in a footnote and a more-than-passing mention; that's more than some folks get). If indeed her plays were performed at the Edinburgh festival, that would help: I can't verify that. One other mention in a book--but that's a snippet I can't get anything useful out of. Let her stay, I say. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Drmies has already maded a convincing case, but if any more is needed here is a 1249-word article in the Los Angeles Times about the subject and here are 1006 words in the New York Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, thanks for the references! I'll bring them in when I have a moment, if someone else hasn't done so already. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. The article could use cleanup, especially all the quoting. It sounds more like a PR piece than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I didn't think that "her career has landed in a backwater" was very promotional... Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True dat! But I was referring to the gush of quotes and material like "Still, she made quite an impression even in the United States, as attested by a lengthy article devoted to her in the Washington Post by Colman McCarthy". In any case, the backwater comment should also go. NPOV seems to be violated from both directions in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I try to be an equal opportunity offender... Are you really asking me to be, like, encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 4 March 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.