Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franny Choi


 * 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. Additional references proving secondary coverage to establish notability were provided. (non-admin closure)  scope_creep Talk  08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Franny Choi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable but moving. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  21:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)   scope_creep Talk  21:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As a writer, she would need to meet WP:AUTHOR, so we need evidence of whether #1 she is regarded as an important figure, or #3 has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or #4 her work has won significant critical attention. The article does not include any reviews, but I have found some eg, , , and there may well be more WP:NEXIST. Looking at the edit history, it appears that this article was created as part of a course. I would suggest that tags for improved referencing could have been added as WP:ATD.
 * Comment I dont like getting rid of a poets, particularly since they are considered to be the very best that humanaties got, but there is very little coverage, i.e. no coverage, meaning no secondary references.  scope_creep Talk  23:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Find some references.  scope_creep Talk  12:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the instructor of the course for which this page was created. Will deletion move the page to a draft so we can continue adding references?Timothy.robbins (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)--Timothy.robbins (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi No, it is deleted. The sources need to be of a much higher quality, as it is a BLP article and it needs to satisfy WP:BIO. The refs to the subjects own site, to prove notiblity are unacceptable. I have added a couple including one from PBS which is of a high quality. I've take out some of the worst ones that dont satisfy WP policy. Please add more. With the Huff and PBS article ref, I now think she is probably notable.   scope_creep Talk  16:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the result of an AfD is to delete, then the article is not accessible to ordinary editors, though any who have worked on it can see its history through their User contributions. Another option for voters is Draftify, which would move the article back to draft space and allow more work on it. (I see it's actually called Incubation - see WP:ATD-I.) So far, no one has voted Delete on this AfD, though - we are trying to identify the relevant criteria and suggest ways of meeting them, or include sources to do so, as the editor who nominated the article for deletion has actually done. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep With the addition of the Huffington Post and PBS sources, the subject passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, hi, i see that her book Floating, Brilliant, Gone is held by around 100 libraries, this may be because it is available as an ebook but there also could be a number of reviews of it out there in literaryland, as long as they're from reliable sources the student can and them and they will contribute to Choi's notablitiy. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Nomination Withdrawn Article is notable.  scope_creep Talk  08:47, 18 December 2018 (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.