Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaggy Flores

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 due to additional outside sources being provided. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaggy Flores

Shaggy Flores (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Extensive and apparently autobiographical article about a slam poet. Article provides no outside references, and I haven't yet found any independent sources to show notability. Previously speedied once. --Finngall talk 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside independent references are provided at the bottom of the page. This article is in compliance with existing Wiki articles on Slam or Nuyorican poets. Material provide aside from the short bio is material that was created outside of the source by independent contributors. Please remove from deletion status as the information provided is correct and not web advertising. In addition, how is this page any different from existing Caridad de la Luz and Tego Calderon pages which are posted on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Author/subject (under the above IP) has added some outside references, but also has been trying to delete his old comments from the article talk page. --Finngall talk 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fingall, those comments were accidently deleted when I went to edit my statement. I am new to wikipedia and I'm sorry for not following the protocol. However, this still doesn't change the fact that outside references, as stated above by you, have been provided for this posting therefore fulfilling your earlier request for deletion. Please remove your deletion comment as wikipedia requirements have been fulfilled. In addition, you never answered the question on how this page is different from existing pages on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The references provided - college newspapers and an "open forum" web site - don't make for much on the Wikipedia notability scale. Unless some better references are added, I'll stay with Delete. Not every working musician is notable, and nor is every poet. MarkBul 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThe references provided are from outside independent sources. College newspapers are credible sources of information and establish place and credibility of the material being listed on the article. In addition, Academic articles are provided from nationally recognized scholars to substantiate the work being cited. In regards to comments such as "Not every working musician is notable, and nor is every poet" that may ring true in some cases but not every writer/poet is nationally recognized. The article's references and materials can substantiate this. Unless MarkBul is an expert on nationally recognized Nuyorican poets and writers, I would stick with material that I know.____Zulu1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.135.249 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment per WP:RS "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." College newspapers written and edited by college kids are not mainstream newspapers. And please do not go personal - it does not aid this discusssion. MarkBul 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Author has provided sources such as peer-reviewed material from journals and books from the academia. The college newspapers quoted demonstrate place and time mentioned in the article. Comments made by MarkBul such as "Not all Musicians or poets are notable" are personal and have no place in this discussion. It is not up to him but the contributor to demonstrate wether the material covered is notable. If the sources listed collaborate what is written in the article then why are we giving this contributor such a difficult time when the article fulfills wiki's criteria for submission? This contribution is no different then existing material on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.97.18 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's an important figure in a major poetry movement. The page needs work, but we should have it. futurebird 15:01, 18 September 2007 (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.