Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavonne Jayne Adams


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  11:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lavonne Jayne Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.  ttonyb (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Female native american poet - a rare bird! Could u give her a chance to improve, please? thanx Pvujin (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - She's not Native American by the way, Pvujin - not that that should matter! I can't see how this subject could ever meet the criteria. The article in question was written by a one-time contributor which does ring alarm bells. Anyway, the question is, is the subject notable? I can't find online refs that would support notability, I agree that fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as Ttonyb1 has proposed. Asnac (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The author of the page has read the notability requirements, and says that the subject fits within those paramaters. I think per ||WP:BITE|| and ||WP:AGF|| it's inappropriate to delete this page immediately.  Give the author some time to work on this page, and let's give the author help and guidance until the article meets standards Thomrenault (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Just because the editor has indicated the article subject is notable is not a reason to keep the article. The author has the WP:BURDEN of proof to show it meets notability requirements - something that has not occurred.  The author was given 7 days per a PROD, which you removed, to provide support for the article, so there is no WP:BITE or WP:AGF issue. I would highly suggest you better acquaint yourself with any and all guidelines you might be inclined to refer to in an AfD. In addition, I suggest you familiarize yourself with how PROD and AfD work. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.   ttonyb  (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete what is given is not enough to meet notability. presumably the creator would give us any really strong evidence they had for notability. Easily recreated if she becomes notable at any time in future. I also checked and found no significant signs of her on the internet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delay Verdict As I am fairly busy, it will take me some time to continue improving this article; please be patient. Back in the day, this is how a lot of articles started (that is, slowly), though now Wikipedia jumps on everything so quickly. On a side note, this poet is sometimes referred to as "Lavonne Adams" or "Lavonne J. Adams," which may yield more search results for those who base their opinions on quantity of Google hits. Smilesplash (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – AfDs typically last 7 days. That should be enough time to provide  reliable sources for the article.  If not, the article can always be recreated at a latter date.  BTW - Where do you see someone base any opinions on the quantity of GHits or GNEWS.  What I see is someone referring to "GHits and GNEWS of substance."  Hence quality, not quantity.    ttonyb  (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Adams has been published in over 50 different literary reviews/journals; does this support notability? And if so, what would be the best way to cite this in the article? (and I apologize for my unfounded comment about quantity-based opinions) Smilesplash (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These do not necessarily support notability. What is required is to show some sort of impact, as demonstrated in any one of a number of ways: substantive write-ups about her, citations by others to her work, winning significant awards, substantial holding of her works by institutions, holding of a top post in academia, learned society, etc. I'm afraid there's no obvious evidence of any of these. Adams seems to be a very average (i.e. non-notable) academic. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of the impact indicators that we take as demonstrative of notability are here: no Gnews, no GS citations, very meager book holdings according to WorldCat (e.g. 12 for the Glorieta Pass, 3 for Everyday Still life, 3 for In the Shadow of the Mountain, 1 each for her 2 theses). This is pretty clear case of having much output, but little impact – the latter being what is required for "notability" under WP:PROF#1. Uncontroversial delete. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete Hmm. It seems the impact of her work may be too local and/or undocumented currently, despite her widespread published poems. I concede. But I shall save a copy of this article in case her writing gains more prominence in the future. Thank you, everyone, for your input and faithful adherence to Wikipedia's standards. Though, I must admit, I don't have the heart to be the one who pulls the plug on this article. Please make it quick and painless ;) Smilesplash (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (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.