Talk:Kalisha Buckhanon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

|||

[edit] Disputing CSD

Buckhanon is definitely a noteworthy author. The article is unreferenced, and even though I did not post it I am working on cleaning it up and researching references for it. It is not a spam article. Risker (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Wow...I tried to keep it from the wolves. It definately is an article that needs wikification, not deletion!--Sallicio 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems we have held off the CSD, but the article does need to be properly referenced. I've located a few potential sources below (her name pulls up over 10,000 google hits), and let's hope the originating editor will help out with more information on other reference sources.

I suspect that there is an element of conflict of interest in this article, but at the same time the subject is definitely noteworthy and deserving of an article. Risker (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. This looks more like shameless self promotion than anything of real value. Since none of the books have been on the NYTBS list its safe to say this is a pretty un-noteworthy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.220.217 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential reference sources

http://criticalcompendium.com/2008/02/20/conception-by-kalisha-buckhanon/
http://otium.uchicago.edu/authors.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021402713.html
http://www.urban-reviews.com/insideout-kalishabuckhanon.html
http://www.macmillanacademic.com/Academic/book/BookDisplay.asp?BookKey=3583631

These also give information on other noteworthy reviews, which may require further research to identify. It took me 10 minutes to find this many, aside from the dozens of commercial sites selling the books in multiple formats.

It is hoped the originating editor will be able to supply further information on the magazine reviews that are already described in the article (magazine, date of publication, pages, author of review) so that these reviews can be researched and added. Risker (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The article still needs major cleanup. I've started to remove some of the most breathless praise and extraneous information. This is an encyclopedia, not a public-relations brochure, and it should not read like one. I suspect that our single-purpose account IP editor 71.201.67.242 (talk · contribs) is the same as Spindlemanagement (talk · contribs) and I reiterate the conflict of interest considerations regarding this article. I suggest that you (anon) read manual of style for biographies and our neutral point of view policy. Writing in a more neutral fashion makes it less likely that the article will be challenged again, something that COI-afflicted editors often misunderstand (they think they need to throw the kitchen sink at an article and fill it with "best writer since Shakespeare" logrolling to make it seem notable; in fact it makes the article ugly, unreadable, and offensive to most Wikipedia editors, as we are not a venue for spam). --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)