Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Critchley


 * 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   no consensus. Apparently a borderline case in terms of notability, but there is no consensus to delete the article. Xxanthippe does not provide an argument for why the article should be deleted, and therefore their opinion is not taken into account when assessing consensus.  Sandstein  18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Emily Critchley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject fails to meet criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). There appears to be no third-party source for parts of the article (a quick Internet search of some of the publications listed brought up nothing but the Wikipedia page itself, and the subject's own academic page at the university they're employed at). No findings to support assertion that the subject is a visual artist or musician.

Of equal concern, the article appears to have been authored by one of the subject's own small-press publishers, Pennedinthemargins - whose other created articles include Penned in the Margins and Tom Chivers its director! One must therefore conclude that the article may not be written from a neutral point of view, and represents a possible conflict of interest. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Does not rate a single cite on GS so fails WP:Prof. What about poetry? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the coverage necessary to show notability, though it's always possible I'm missing something. COI doesn't doom an article like this, if you can find sources (independent of the subject), but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Usual Caveats apply, however; if she publishes something that gains significant coverage, an article might end up being appropriate. But not yet. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article reworked. I've added cites, quite easy to find on the internet. She has won two major poetry prizes, and so she is notable. Span (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - thanks for reworking the article, Span. I'd like to offer two points regarding notability, relating to the citations included, and to the poetry prizes.
 * 1. Reference 2 (the source for most of the article, it appears) is the subject's own academic page, reference 5 is the subject's own biography provided for a reading, and references 8 and 9 also all stem from the subject herself. These form the bulk of the references for the article and are not independent sources. Reference 1 is an interview with the subject, so the notability of hosting site needs to be assessed. Reference 3 is apparently a reprinting of the subject's PhD (in only 20 pages?) in a small-press magazine 'not currently available', so again the notability of the magazine requires assessment.
 * 2. The poetry prizes - The John Kinsella-Tracy Ryan prize is a Cambridge college prize, open only to Cambridge students in statu pupillari, so is neither an industry award, nor a national or international competition. The Jane Martin Prize for Poetry is also based at a Cambridge college, but is in its first year and so has been awarded only once (when it was shared by Critchley with another winner). Although the latter prize is nationally 'open', I can find little evidence to show that it was nationally advertised. I'm unsure whether either prize can be considered a 'major' poetry prize, which is important as Span's argument to keep the article rests on this. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete after reviewing the evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I think the national-level award, and in-depth reviews of her work in several publications including the Chicago Review, add up to notability in a subject (poetry) where notability can be very elusive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Jane Girton Prize was advertised nationally there are five mentions at the National Poetry Library, not that that should change anything, it's a national prize, which is all that is required for an article to stay. Greenwich University is a solid third party source. Neither the notability of Hot Gun journal, nor the site Other Room need assessing for notability. They are not in question here. Critchley has had her Phd reviewed in many places including including the Cambridge Literary Review . It seems that CouldBeAnybody has a personal wish to see the article deleted, irrespective of merit. The guidelines here are clear. Span (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification. I do not have 'a personal wish to see the article deleted, irrespective of merit'. I have concerns that the subject does not have the requisite notability to have an article on Wikipedia, and that is why I nominated it for deletion. However, if you could show me a guideline that states that 'a national prize ... is all that is required for an article to stay' then fine, the article should remain. (And I'll even be the first to add a page for this year's winner of the national 'Write a poem about a donkey' prize currently advertised on the National Poetry Library website.) CouldBeAnybody (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on her great volume of published work. This individual fails WP:PROF, but I want to point out that it's fairly difficult for even highly published poets to achieve the notability guidelines and it might not be a bad idea to establish some specifically for this purpose. WP:POET anyone? Trusilver  11:51, 25 October 2011 (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.