Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mira Gonzalez (3rd 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO. Published a single book of poems 6 years ago and does not appear to be active. Appears to be a vanity page for the author to link to on twitter. KiTA (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to pass WP:AUTHOR 4)c. Was featured with new poetry in a literary publication 3 years ago .  Alternative to deletion: the page should be updated with this content.  Linking to her twitter is relevant considering her creation of a poetry book based on collages of her (and others') tweets, which also supports WP:AUTHOR 2.


 * Delete - Per nomination, does not seem notable and author seems to promote her own Wikipedia page via social media, suggesting the page may be a vanity piece. Saget53 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article fits the criteria for notability. In particular, the bio receives significant coverage from independent sources that do not come from and are not directly related to the subject of the bio. The sources are reliable mainstream publications such as the Guardian. I agree with what was stated above - this article should just be updated to reflect more recent info about the subject. I should also point out that there is considerable new interest in deletion after comments the subject made against a well-known personality, so arguments favoring deletion may come from a biased intent against the subject rather than an impartial evaluation of the article itself. MindPrism (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per two previous Keep discussions. Notable poet, reviews in reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. 71.103.224.224 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I’ve seen articles on less notable people survive AfDs. I agree that the article now looks like a vanity page. However, the better response is to correct the article, as opposed to delete it. I already tried to do that by deleting all puffery that was supported by ñon-existing articles, but that got reverted. I’ll leave it to other users now. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: appears to be notable: notability is not temporary so "does not appear to be active" is irrelevant, and she is no less notable than when passing two previous AfDs. Pam  D  11:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: She meets notability, but the article needs a serious edit - it is a shining, A+ example of puffery. JSFarman (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources talking about her in depth. Current activity is irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (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.