Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Tamás

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Tamás

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, the article sourcing is almost entirely primary. It's possible that her anthology Spells might qualify for an article, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad enough reviews have been found to support WP:NAUTHOR! No issues with keeping :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazerethFor clarity, please strike your bolded "Delete" and add a bolded "Keep". Thanks.Pam D 18:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added references and think there is enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to good work by @Tacyarg. Kazamzam (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom here, not sure if I can vote for my own nom. Just went through and deleted broken links that don't exist (FT for one was a dud) plus references to her own two paragraph reviews of someone else's poems in unknown arts mags. Although she's rising, I would not say she is risen. Many if not 1000s of people have poems in anthologies, poetry books and have won small awards (or 'jointly won' in her case). We have a poetry slam in my city every weekend you want every winner on here? This is specialist not generalist and there's a definite element of sock-puppetry going on. The prizes are not notable enough at this point. Will get an ID here one day I swear 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've reverted the IP's two recent edits, which removed valid content. I found an archived copy of one ref, the FT link exists ~~though it is behind a paywall, so I can't see whether the reference is "a dud" but I don't know that the IP can see it either~~. Other refs they removed included links to her entry at London Review of Books which links to four of her poems published there: a valid source for the statement that she has been published in LRB, and so on. She appears to be notable. PamD 10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FT link is to a page showing that she has been published in the FT, ie supporting the statement in the article. I can't click through to read her actual article in the FT, but the ref certainly isn't "a dud". PamD 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the Manchester Poetry Prize (that article needs some work) is not just a "university award" but "the UK’s biggest prize for unpublished poetry". PamD 11:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a paid subscriber to FT, and it comes up with an 'oops' page. I'm actually more inclined towards Keep now, thanks to recent edits, but lots of references does not equate to quality references 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't !vote twice. Either strike one or say you are unsure. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria, in particular due to multiple reviews for WITCH in WP:RS in addition to reviews and awards for earlier work Nnev66 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of her works in reliable sources such as The Guardiian and The Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to me to pass the GNG by a significant margin due to coverage in independent third party RS. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2024 (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.