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 as although still about a day early, there's a clear consensus to keep and I see no likeliness of it changing with another week (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Franklin (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)

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, which asserts her existence but fails to demonstrate or reliably source her notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ARTIST. This is based entirely on primary sources and WP:ROUTINE event listings, with no indication of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which creative professionals are entitled to have articles just because they exist -- real reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for her to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As Bearcat says, all sources are either interviews, stock biographies or event listings.Please come back in five or ten years, with reputable sources. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, following the flurry of truly wishy-washy references added by some editors. To update my "ten years" comment, which I made when I thought the poet was actualy much earlier in their career... why is it so hard to find references stronger than student newspapers, event announcements for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? After 17 years there should be a LOT of in-depth reviews and critical mentions in siginificant sources, and they should be easy to find. This article has become a classic example of how to make someone notable enough through forensic reference excavation and archaeology. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi @Bearcat: and @HappyValleyEditor: I’ve rewritten the lead for this article and was hoping either one of you could answer as to why one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets has her article nominated for deletion? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn:I rewrote your rewrite, which was really just puffing things up by an appeal to authority (The Poetry Foundation say so, so she must be notable). Published secondary sources are weak, which is why I voted to delete. In essence, not enough people are writing about her. To wit, the seciton you added with publications is referenced by primary sources (the publishers) rather than independent third-party book reviews, critical essays or media mentions. Have a look at WP:RS.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to assert that a person is "one of the most celebrated, and published, modern day African-American female poets" — reliable source coverage in media has to demonstrate the truth of the assertion, and nobody ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article (or an AFD discussion about it) makes unsubstantiated assertions of notability. Anybody can claim absolutely anything about an article topic — I could easily start an article about myself which claimed that I'd won the Nobel Prize, for example — so it's not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that's present to support the claim, that determines whether an article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't believe it was very constructive to delete the new lead I worked very hard to create and thoroughly referenced. With so many references being available to prove the notability of this African-American female artist, only some of which I included, anyone taking part in this discussion will now not have these references available to see for themselves. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note After the deletion of the lead I rewrote this is what it says now: Krista Franklin is a poet and visual artist with no references being citied. In the interest of fairness though, the rewrite that I did using reliable sources can be viewed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, solidly. The Poetry Foundation profile is short but a perfectly good source. It is perhaps a summary drawing on multiple good longer other sources that exist. There are 5 published interviews of her (linked from that section of her website). The long interview dated June 2010 at examiner.com (The Examiner?) establishes her notability on its own. There is significant other press about her (see links from that section). The only problem with the article is that it is not yet developed far enough, it should describe her visual art work, etc. --doncram 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion of this article would remove all contribution to mainspace by the article's creator, a new editor who created this apparently at an Arts and Feminism Wikipedia meetup, from a list of suggested articles needed. The prod 6 minutes later appears unfortunate in context: it may have stopped further development at that event and turned off a potential contributor. Also it appears wp:before was not performed. And sarcasm like "come back in 10 years" is rude, does not belong here, makes me feel a bit ashamed. I have commented elsewhere that guidelines for AFD should be changed to take new contributor factor into consideration and reduce likelihood of this kind of stuff happening; I expect to use this case as an example in future discussion.--doncram 22:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Aside from the poetry foundation profile (which seems to me like it should count towards her notability), there is also this, this, this (all reports on different works by her in local papers); this interview (JSTOR Daily). More mentions here and here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think Bearcat did a fine and proper job of nominating this. As to my "come back in five or ten years" comment, artistic careers can take multiple decades to fully develop. Who created the article is irrelevant. The refs Caeciliusinhorto has come up with are only slightly better than the ones I saw in my own search but they're pretty weak overall: an unreliable interview, a student newspaper, a paragraph in this one, another interview] (which fails the independent source test), an event announcement and finally another student newspaper. There is frequent mention of interviews in the comments above. Interviews are not independent sources-- they are a direct interaction with the article subject. The Poetry Foundation ref is decent, but it's not a critical review, it's a republished bio with some accolades. Organizations get these bios from the artists- they phone them up or email and say "send us your bio so we can publish it." Finally, there's nothing to be ashamed about here. This is just a plain old AfD that is examining the notability of a subject for a Wikipedia article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• re. the Poetry Foundation bio: there is nothing in GNG which says that notability must be in the form of critical reviews. I am also wary of dismissing a bio published in an independent source as coming from the subject with no evidence beyond "this is the sort of thing these sorts of organisations do". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have taken the time to add the mentioned sources by Caeciliusinhorto (thanks) as references to the article including, [1], [2], [3],[4] and [5]. Many of the references include full page spreads, not just mere mentions. I also found several other new references in reliable sources. Such as, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. The some 17-18 references contained in the article as of now have significant coverage across multiple reliable sources WP:RS, and therefore this article subject meets WP:GNG easily, and has crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your list there, you repeated three links twice. Softlavender (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to pass WP:GNG. Regardless of what types of sources they are, they are sufficient to provide an encyclopedic biography.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can understand why this was nominated in the state it was in at that time: [12]. I was fairly dubious about it until just now. I've now noticed enough significant coverage and notability to convince me that she passes GNG. The sad fact of the matter is that black artists, especially black female artists, especially black female underground artists, do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more "visible" artists do. Especially when they work in two completely different fields: i.e., art and poetry, which divides the focus of visibility. That's why one has to scrounge around a bit more to get sources and assess notability. But I am convinced by now that she passes. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe that the HappyValleyEditor question as to why is it so hard to find references...for a poet who has been publishing for 17 years or more? was legitimatly answered by Softlavender who correctly pointed out that American American (especially) female artists do not have the same kind of corporate-owned media coverage that other more visible artists do. Going forward though, and in the hope that this AfD can provide a sort of framework for this issue, what exact WP guidelines/polices/etc. should editors use in this type of evaluation? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As to the comment about female poets, Picomtn and Softlavender, the sections above where you moan about opportunitees for certain groups are large exaggerations. Poets, publishers of poetry and the poetry consuming public are in geenral the most erudite, lef-leaning, politically correct non-discriminating group around. Also, we are not taking about finding references for a 19th centruy powet here-- we are talking abotu the last fiteen years. Let's remeber that those who are in the literature-promotion business are perhaps the MOST left wing and MOST sensitive to discrimination of all the professions. The reality is that this person is just not that notable. The discrimination claim is hyperbolic. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with political spectrum. This is about corporate-owned media. If you believe poets and black female artists are well-represented in corporate-owned media, then I simply disagree with you. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Softlavender and Picomtn, women are still poorly represented in media as this study shows. While women authors made slight gains, for example, overall, coverage still lags behind coverage of men (see page 95). HappyValleyEditor, you can't assume that poets are "left leaning" or even unbiased in their selections. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references now included in the improved and expanded article are sufficient to establish notability. I find the theorizing and hypothesizing in this debate to be unproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Softlavender. I'll see if I can add any other references from the databases, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, late yesterday I added a couple of references to the bottom of the Talk page that haven't been used yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2016 (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.