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. ^King Jakob _C2 14:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

St._Sukie_de_la_Croix[edit]

St._Sukie_de_la_Croix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Notability not established per Wikipedia:BIO DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I'm seeing a few mainstream RS references for this guy, including a fairly significant Chicago Sun Times article. I think this guy probably meets notability requirements. The article does obviously have problems though, and this could be a potential candidate for a clean up delete per WP:TNT. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I am not sure how notable his awards are, but I think he passes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don;t believe that's correct. Of the 6 soruces cited, 1 is original research and 4 are the subject's own book. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but start over per NickCT, WP:TNT. Much of the current article violates WP:NOTRESUME and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability seems to hang on him being author of one book (which does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) there is not significant coverage in secondary sources. The majority of citations are an interview conducted by the page author and therefore Wikipedia:Original research. The two awards cited are very localised to the subject's location and community, and not widely notable. I would support a re-write, but can notability be established? DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree—there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Most references are related the book he wrote, but reviewing WP:AUTHOR, he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Before voting, I would be curious to hear what those who elected to 'keep' are thinking. TheBlueCanoe 22:28, 26 April 2013 (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.