Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mira Gonzalez (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Mira Gonzalez
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unnotable person. Frequent Inappropriate editing. This article is entirely self indulgent and does not belong on this site, especially for someone who has absolutely no notability at all. Epicmedic0 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Epicmedic0 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if the nominator could, instead of repeating the assertion that the subject is not notable in a rather uncivil way, explain why the sources in the article and available elsewhere don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This article seems to be attracting 'contributors' who have little or no regard for Wikipedia's rules, especially regarding biographies of living persons, for dubious agendas -- possibly people associated with the poet (or maybe the poet herself?), maybe as a way to attract attention, or bring more eyeballs to this page? For example, there is vandalism here and here and here -- that is, the vandalism (seems to be) not just the work of one person, but numerous ones, which can consume much time here trying to keep the article shipshape and without slanders or smears (I had to search back into the history to get to a neutral-sounding version such as this one). I suggest that if the article is kept (which it should -- she's clearly a notable poet) that steps be taken to semi-protect or full-protect this article so that only established contributors in good standing can make changes. So I'm copy-pasting my 'keep' comments from the previous AfD discussion. (from first AfD:) Notable poet, intelligent impartial critical reviews of her poetry, references meet GNG. Plus, I read parts of her poems; she is a skilled writer. Also, check out the pageviews averaging 40-50 day spiking recently to 1700+, suggesting she is building an audience, probably with young thumb tribe types. True, I have never heard of most of these sources, but the writing in them is intelligent, grammatically coherent, and sharp, suggesting they're authentic. Commentary about her poetry is not one-sided and spammy but critically adept, such as this review, plus this review in Nylon magazine -- note that Nylon (magazine) has a wiki-article. This reviewer here knows poetry sufficiently to use terms like anaphora which I might have thought was a woman's name. Plus Gonzalez is up for a possible poetry award from this magazine. She is getting attention from alt-lit pop culture sources such as this one. Her publisher is a start-up by a guy with new thoughts about publishing. Numerous sources, meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC) (updating pageview link)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NPOET and WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources reflecting Gonzalez's notability, here are some more: from The Guardian - "Gonzalez writes about the internet a lot, and has a particular talent for describing the absence that a life spent online can create. .. It makes sense that people living in the internet age find themselves drawn to the permanent dusk of Gonzalez’s poetry. It sums up the confusions of an age when we are able to dip into a celebrity’s private life at a whim, or cause a furore with a hashtag, filling our lives with endless photos of ourselves."Mira Gonzalez’s poems are quietly defining texts of the digital era, a short interview by Publishers Weekly - Four Questions for...Poet Mira Gonzalez, and a discussion with Gonzalez and Tao Lin on KCRW about their book Selected Tweets - "Often dark and despairing, but also bitingly funny, Mira sees tweets as being as essential to literature as haiku."Mira Gonzalez and Tao Lin: Selected Tweets. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, DOES NOT meet WP:NPOET requirements. Gonzalez is NOT regarded as an important figure nor is she widely cited. Her concept, theory and technique is not new, she has not created a well-known work and her work is not significant. She fails EVERY requirement. Furthermore, her "notability" is based on the state of sourcing in articles. The edits (and the page itself were created by her specifically to create a sense of notability. This pages fails the meet even the most minimal requirements. Cdahlkvist (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Cdahlkvist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. She easily meets the WP:GNG with a source like this one in The Guardian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nobody has offered any explanation of why the significant coverage in independent reliable sources listed in the article and above is insufficient for notability per WP:GNG. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Easily and obviously meets notability criteria, contrary to the assertions of SPAs who are WP:NOTHERE. gobonobo  + c 21:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject quite clearly meets WP:GNG. Multiple independent reliable sources such as, and . I would suggest a WP:SNOW close.  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 02:17, 12 October 2016 (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.