Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Lenier


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sue Lenier

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Poet - few google hits, despite claims to be bigger than Shakespeare, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Richard Hock (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment. If kept, this needs dablinks with Susan Lanier.  Linguist At Large  17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - move to Susan Jennifer Lenier as this appears to be her publishing name and a definite POV/OR cleanup. Claims of being regarded as better than Shakespeare need to be backed up by something. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the claim about Shakespeare is backed up. Can anyone dig up the article? - Mgm|(talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Book jacket claims--which is what I assume they are-- are meaningless, as is an absurdity in the Daily Mirror. She has two published books. Swansongs has only 51 holdings in WorldCat. Rain following : poems has 82. Even for poetry thats very low productivity & I'd want something much mroe reliable in the way of references.DGG (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I've been following the discussion as I wasn't sure, but there didn't seem to be notability for inclusion. Unless something substantial is found and added I don't think the subject meets guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Swansongs received rave reviews on publication and the fact that this was before the internet age should not count against the notability of the writer. Calling sources 'an absurdity' does not count against their relevance.  Nick mallory (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two publications with a few reviews does not seem notable. Without the review text, a very thin article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2008 (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.