Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Livingood


 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeb Livingood

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination. Article was deleted via prod on 22 December 2009 and recreated on 8 February 2010. , who recreated the article, left a note on the talk page objecting to the original deletion by prod. Article was prodded again on 22 February but the talk page note indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale this time around was "Minor academic, fails notability criteria for academics."

I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep (article author) Prod'ed as non-notable academic. i'm saying notable per managing editor of Best New Poets series, which has multiple reviews. WP:AUTHOR 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pohick2 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3  chat 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little impact appears. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep Since the Best New Poets series has  about 150 holding libraries, it might be notable enough, given the reviews in Google Scholar      DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (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.