Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Kruk (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   delete. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Frances_Kruk
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources (or any sources for that matter) Again, that the subject is now suddenly married to Sean Bonney, privileged information from someone who knows the subject directly or the subject herself -- UK Google search shows no information on this : 'That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A' as per WP:BIO. Has edited non-notable online issues and published one chapbook in non-notable press, like thousands of other people. Picture relates to work self-published by press the subject co-runs. Curvejuice (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Curvejuice's 2nd nomination for deletion can be argued against - Chicago Review is notable reference source and Keith Tuma a reliable third party anthologist and critic of poetry. Frances Kruk article reference based on quote from Chicago Review 53:1 Spring 2007 http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/review/531_tuma.pdf PDF page 218. Wikiwel (talk contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One review in one journal does not assert notability. You seem to not understand what this means. I recommend reading Wikipedia guidelines, linked to above, before creating other articles (on people you know ) Curvejuice (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The review Wikiwel mentioned was about 4 pages, of which between a half-page and page were devoted to Kruk. I'm not sure this is significant coverage. Based also on the review's comments about "promising future", I don't see the notability hurdle met yet. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom/lack of WP:RS. We66er (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  = keep + new source & citations = added WP:RS value = Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.195.74 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete New line added on 'CIAC' still does not assert notability. I don't believe notability is going to be asserted. Curvejuice (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Curvejuice recommends Wikiwel read encyclopedia guidelines before creating more articles on people (user knows?). Point of clarification: original article was created by user Playwright1749 who expressed intention of creating more articles on, presumably, poets associated with younger generation British Poetry Revival (bpr), ref. Talk: Frances Kruk. 'The 1980s and after' content in (bpr) Wikipedia article distinguishes Kruk along with several other young poets. Some with linked stand-alone articles. Some not. Keep.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.83.246 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to this article directly, hence parentheses. Point of clarification: Wikiwel's privileged knowledge shows he knows Kruk (as i am sure you do) and the user created a page on Bad Press run by a Jow Lindsay who has been 'published' by Kruks press and who has edited information on this article under the pseudonym listed on his own article, Francis Crot (sound familiar?). Connection is there, was advising for future referance in accordance with Wikipedia rules Curvejuice (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to Curvejuice's understandable concerns about neutrality & possible COI issues posted Talk:Frances Kruk Wikiwel (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (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.