Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Magsamen


 * 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 for the moment per nominator's implied withdrawal. Yuser31415 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Magsamen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is hagiography. The notability is meager, and no references are provided for the claim of being "award-winning." Deranged bulbasaur 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Her book was reviewed in the Washington Post here. A Google search reveals many instances where she is called "award-winning".  She was "chosen from thousands of artists to create Saks Fifth Avenue's Christmas book, ... and was selected to create the theme for their 2003 holiday events across the country. Saks' flagship windows were the second most visited tourist site in Manhattan during the holidays" Link.  - PoliticalJunkie 14:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article, as it stands, is complete fluff. I think you'd do just as well to start over. Deranged bulbasaur 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, the language is rather fluffy (e.g. "vibrant and expressive works", "express ourselves in our own authentic and unique ways"). Still, if someone incorporates the links from above and rewrites the entire article before the end of this discussion, the article is worthy. - PoliticalJunkie 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Her cloth book series from LB Kids, an imprint of Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, debuted in September with two books, Baby Love and My Blanket, which were awarded the Platinum Book Award, the highest honor bestowed by The Oppenheim Toy Portfolio. My Blanket won a Gold Award in the book category of the 2006 National Parenting Publications Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markart55 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. As it is this article is meaningless.  If someone can and wants to fix it, go ahead.--Parsleyjones 17:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a perfectly valid entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markart55 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep and copyedit, wikify, add refs, etc. I'm convinced there is something salvageable here.  I will work on it tomorrow. --Mus Musculus 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, I have rewritten the article and provided citations. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The revisions look good. - PoliticalJunkie 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per PoliticalJunkie. --EarthPerson 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Use of the term "hagiography" in the nomination seems a bit rude. --EarthPerson 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. It's bandied about rather freely here, and some works (e.g. the lives of the saints) are commonly described as hagiography with no depricatory intention. As far as I know, the literal meaning is "writings about greatness" or something similar, which doesn't seem very condemnatory. In any case, I'm leaning toward thinking the present version of the article is worth keeping. I might've withdrawn my nomination if it were a younger AfD, but since it's about to run its course anyway, I'll let the closing admin have his say. Congratulations to User:Mus Musculus for turning the article into something worthwhile. Deranged bulbasaur 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think my prior comments or the other delete voters have much bearing considering that it's almost an entirely new article. Deranged bulbasaur 17:38, 16 March 2007 (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.