Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Clarke


 * 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 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

D. A. Clarke

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has been tagged with a notability tag since January, so clearly no-one has attempted to establish notability. I have no position on the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get why the "notability" tag was added in the first place. Looking at her list of publications, I see that one of her essays chosen at random appeared alongside popular feminist writers such as Dworkin and Steinem, in an anthology that was reviewed in both Publishers' Weekly and Kirkus Reviews.  Notability is one of those funny words, indefinable, really, but this author's works do seem to have had a very broad exposure.  I'd say this article has probably been listed for deletion in error. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * speedy keep based on publications. the_undertow talk  00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The presence of a notability tag need not necessarily lead to an AfD; it merely shows that one ed., has questioned it, or asked for further evidence. It shouldn't be nom. just on the procedural grounds of having been tagged; it is equally possible for a 2nd ed. to look at the article and remove the tag. DGG 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, anthologized author, but could use citations as to notability. A poem usually attributed to anonymous does look suspicious. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps add a tag asking for improvements. ~ G1ggy!  ...chatterbox... 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, not speedy - but could be on WP:SNOW at this point, maybe. Seems notable enough based on attributions. --63.64.30.2 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently nontrivial works. --Infrangible 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Could be better constructed, but seems notable/accomplished enough. WikiFishy 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the WP:SNOW clause now applies here. RFerreira 06:08, 5 May 2007 (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.