Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Winfield


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz Winfield

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP of a subject who does not pass WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.   The article notes, "Around the Hobart poetry traps, Liz Winfield is well known. She is a performance poet and a pensive, meditative writer. Her new and outstanding poetry collection Too Much Happens is her first solo collection." <li> The article notes, "Liz Winfield is a poet of many guises. Her new chapbook, Catalogue of Love, is a collection as intensely personal as a postcard of intimacies whilst maintaining broad-based appeal."</li> <li> The article notes, "Tasmanian Liz Winfield's first book of verse, Too Much Happens, begins with a poem called Warning in which she advises that "I am a confessional poet".  ... Winfield writes tight, jaunty poems that court mawkishness, but only occasionally (as in Love Song) succumb to it."</li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liz Winfield to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Comment Thanks for finding these. 1. Is a database entry so I’m not sure it helps with notability. 2,3 and 5 are by the same author in the same regional press so while that carries some weight I’m not sure how much. 4 is good but brief. All this may amount to a GNG pass but I’ll wait and see what others think. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AustLit says, "AustLit is an encyclopaedia of Australian writers and writing" and https://www.austlit.edu.au/about says, "AustLit is brought to you by The University of Queensland in collaboration with academic, library, education and research organisations", so I consider its entry about Liz Winfield to be an encyclopaedia entry that contributes to notability. Notability (people) says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think there is enough combined material about Winfield to establish notability, but I agree with your analysis that the subject is borderline notable. Cunard (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep because of the sources identified by Cunard. pburka (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think Cunrads arguments are good and she may also meet notability with having won an award. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. I also note that a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers revealed many (12+) articles, although most were in the Sunday Tasmanian (regional paper) by the same author (Christopher Bantick), as noted by Mccapra. On balance I would keep the page and feel it passes GNG, and to help I will try to add appropriate refs. Cabrils (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.