Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisha Buckhanon


 * 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, clear incentive to improve the article has been demonstrated and notability is not an issue. Non-admin closure. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kalisha Buckhanon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Author biography article with a somewhat confused history of creation, deletion, restoral, etc. Appears to originally have been an autobiography. However, the subject may well meet notability guidelines, having two novels published by a major house (St. Martin's), a number of literary awards, and reviews in major publications including the Washington Post, Kirkus Reviews, and the (UK) Independent. It was tagged with CSD:A7 which does not seem to apply. Procedural nomination, with no recommendation. MCB (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, we couldn't wikify it fast enough before it was thrown to the wolves. I have notified the author, a new editor about WP policies. The original was placed in haste and shouldn't have even made it to this point. We should take more time to actually read the articles before we db them from the newpage patrols--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I suspect there may be a COI in the article as originally posted, the author is clearly noteworthy, has won several important awards, has two books published by a major house, and so on. The article needs cleanup, pruning and proper referencing, but should not be deleted.  Risker (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Understood that this is a procedural nom, but this is really straightforward, except for the over-the-top personal bildungsroman writing style. It could easily be trimmed by half just removing extraneous (and unverifiable) point-of-view exposition, not to mention many extraneous references, e.g. multi-sentence profiles of her parents. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have warned (a single-purpose account) about our conflict of interest policies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points by Dhartung.--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Absolutely fulfills WP:BIO and WP:NOTE given the content in the article.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see anything wrong with the sources in this article and Washington Post is an excellent primary.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:13, 12 March 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.