Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Leahy


 * 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) Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna Leahy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable writer. The prize she won does not seem to be very high-profile, and I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (personal webpage and university faculty pages don't count). Reyk YO!  09:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep I looked on EBSCOhost and she has a substantial review from a journal in the database for her poetry. In addition, she is a regular contributor to Huffington Post, and several academic and literary journals. I'll hit Lexis Nexus later and see what I can find, but I think she's notable enough to keep. She is also the editor of several books that seem to be used as textbooks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've updated her page to reflect what I've found in databases. There is still a little more to add, but I think my "Keep" argument is stronger now because I've shown that she's been covered in journals and her work has contributed to the way Creative writing is taught at the University level. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep. At the very least, meets WP:BASIC with what's currently in the article, plus this, and this and this and this. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  09:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article contains sufficient sources as of now to comfortably surpass notability guidelines. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above: notable, rewritten, cited. Ogress smash! 04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep User:Megalibrarygirl has clearly demonstrated notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple sources verify notability. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.