Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Grahn

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Grahn

extremly non-notableThetruthbelow^(talk) 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep after considerable expansion and improvement was made on the article. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not an attack page; she really is an openly lesbian poet. Not overly notable but not blatantly nonnotable either. No vote. Opabinia regalis 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to be notable, as there's an award named after her. --Rory096 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd say she probably meets WP:BIO. --Rory096 07:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has been around for a long time and still doesn't assert notability or contain any significant content. Being an openly lesbian poet doesn't imply notability. Paddles ^T_C 08:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Rewrite addresses my concerns. Paddles ^T_C 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely having an award named after you, being recognized as "the literary founder of lesbian feminism" and writing 13 non-self published books does, though? --Rory096 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marketers/publicists of events have been known to indulge in hyperbole. Besides, having an award named after you doesn't automatically confer notability; one of my uni friends (RIP David) has an award named after him and was incredibly talented, but I don't think he's quite WP-worthy. If it's enough to establish notability, then why hasn't anyone put it in the article itself? Establish notability, and I'll change my vote. Paddles ^T_C 09:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh come on, now you're not listening to evidence because it's not in the article? That's silly. And AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable poet. I don't see how mentioning her as openly lesbian constitutes an attack, assuming she really is openly lesbian. I don't know, this is the first time I've heard of her. JIP | Talk 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article at present is barely a stub; I'd prefer that it were expanded. Grahn was pretty big in lesbian and feminist circles in the 70's. She's currently co-director of the Women's Spirituality MA program and Program Director of the MFA in Creative Inquiry at New College of California [1]. I can work on adding info and references if others think it worthwhile. BuckRose 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand - external links on this page clearly show that she is notable and an important figure in lesbian literary circles, though I agree that the current WP article is highly inadequate. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - 41,000 Google hits, including impressive pages at University of Illinois at Urbana, GLBTQ, and her own page at Serpentina includes an impressive list of "Awards Notices and Grants". As OpenToppedBus says, the current article is inadequate, but can be easily expanded. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is that apparently BuckRose volunteered first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand - very prolific writer and her impact is certainly visible from a simple Google search. This article is badly in need of expansion to assert her notability without needing to look elsewhere Barneyboo (Talk) 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded. Xyra e l ^T 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've begun to expand the article. I welcome contributions and suggestions for others. BuckRose 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse. Lots of good Google hits. ScottW 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, obviously satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirement. Amazinglarry 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- she seems notable. bogdan 19:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand -- according to the links cited, she seems a published poet of sufficient notability for interest. There's a risk of preferentially deleting minority artists. Espresso Addict 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The expansion removed any doubt of notability. --Fastfission 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Appears notable now. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Sarge Baldy 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scholarly articles on her work at University of Illinois is enough for me. Thanks for expansion. --Cedders^tk 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.