Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Schlesinger


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Schlesinger

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

He wrote a few books, and that's about it. What demonstrates notability? Here, the trio of templates are gravy. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and it's a conflict of interest: the creator is Kschlesinger.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are a few Gnews hits, so he might have notability, but I can't access the pay-per-view articles to tell. The WP:COI issue isn't too relevant, since COI editing is only a problem when it affects Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based upon Google Books, Google News and plain ol' Google Search which all seem to indicate that there is likely enough available to improve the article once it finds its way up through the stacks. Being templated for improvement should not be a call to nominate for deletion. With the nearl 3 million articles on wikipedia, it is is not expected that all be made better within a few days or weeks or even months. Wiki hopes to be timeless enough so it can all be dealt with.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable poet, fails WP:BIO and most significantly WP:AUTHOR.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep subject of review; editor of journal; publisher of press; body of work on Creeley. pohick (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the review. DGG (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Is the creator of the article the guy it talks about, or someone who just registered that name, and started the article, posting once and never gain?  Most of the editing was done by others though.    D r e a m Focus  12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once it is in mainspace, it belongs to wiki. As long as it is not full of hyperbole and avdert, a decent encyclopedic article is {usually) welcome. That others have improved the article is a sign that the system can work. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:15, 7 April 2009 (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.