- 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Mary Koncel
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mary Koncel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an orphan. Also it has needed additional citations for 11 years. Ellipsis22 ( talk) 02:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry, and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Additionally uncited or orphaned don't count towards WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC (if we're going that route based on her visiting poet post at Smith or her fellowship from Massachusetts Cultural Council), neither do they count towards WP:POET. Sadly, nothing else I can find does, either, so here we are. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
CommentKeep Two of Koncel's books have been reviewed by the newspapers, though I have only found papers in New England that discuss her work. I have added these citations to her article (and removed the tag regarding the lack of citations). DaffodilOcean ( talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Change to keep, the additional coverage of her work with the American Wild Horse Campaign is just enough to make her notable. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It is surprisingly difficult to find published reviews of poetry books. Two newspaper reviews each of two books could be enough for WP:AUTHOR. We also have a local newspaper interview making clear that (although our article doesn't say so) she is the same person as the Mary Koncel associated with the American Wild Horse Campaign, another local newspaper story covering her work with the campaign, and a nonlocal newspaper story with some more in-passing mentions. I'm not sure the wild horse aspect of her story would be enough for WP:GNG on its own, but together with the poetry reviews I think there's enough here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment, Koncel appears to have been covered by the January-February 2005 issue of the American Book Review ( see here) if anyone has access to confirm. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as reviews found seem to show meets WP:NAUTHOR. Neither of the reason's put forward by the nom seem valid reasons to delete. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly the justification to delete is not aligned with policy. Also, I've introduced a link, so the article is not an orphan anymore. Also it is now well cited. Also with multiple reviews of her work, she passes criterion # of WP:CREATIVE. There really isn't much doubt to me that we need to keep this article. CT55555 ( talk) 04:29, 23 June 2022 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Mary Koncel
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mary Koncel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an orphan. Also it has needed additional citations for 11 years. Ellipsis22 ( talk) 02:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry, and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Additionally uncited or orphaned don't count towards WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC (if we're going that route based on her visiting poet post at Smith or her fellowship from Massachusetts Cultural Council), neither do they count towards WP:POET. Sadly, nothing else I can find does, either, so here we are. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
CommentKeep Two of Koncel's books have been reviewed by the newspapers, though I have only found papers in New England that discuss her work. I have added these citations to her article (and removed the tag regarding the lack of citations). DaffodilOcean ( talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Change to keep, the additional coverage of her work with the American Wild Horse Campaign is just enough to make her notable. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It is surprisingly difficult to find published reviews of poetry books. Two newspaper reviews each of two books could be enough for WP:AUTHOR. We also have a local newspaper interview making clear that (although our article doesn't say so) she is the same person as the Mary Koncel associated with the American Wild Horse Campaign, another local newspaper story covering her work with the campaign, and a nonlocal newspaper story with some more in-passing mentions. I'm not sure the wild horse aspect of her story would be enough for WP:GNG on its own, but together with the poetry reviews I think there's enough here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment, Koncel appears to have been covered by the January-February 2005 issue of the American Book Review ( see here) if anyone has access to confirm. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as reviews found seem to show meets WP:NAUTHOR. Neither of the reason's put forward by the nom seem valid reasons to delete. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 12:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly the justification to delete is not aligned with policy. Also, I've introduced a link, so the article is not an orphan anymore. Also it is now well cited. Also with multiple reviews of her work, she passes criterion # of WP:CREATIVE. There really isn't much doubt to me that we need to keep this article. CT55555 ( talk) 04:29, 23 June 2022 (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.