Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Levitsky

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 no consensus. SoWhy 12:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Levitsky

Rachel Levitsky (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer, based almost entirely on primary sources with very little evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all -- out of 36 footnotes here, literally one of them represents a reliable source writing about her in the third person and even that one's a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be written and sourced properly, but nothing claimed here entitles her to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:AUTHOR just because she exists if the sourcing isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is still problematic for the reasons stated and needs more referenced detail on her activities as an arts administrator and academic. But there's enough to indicate her significance as a poet. She has received 2 lengthy reviews in Jacket (magazine), one in Hyperallergic, and a short review in Publishers Weekly, as well as mentions (and praise) in New Yorker, Brooklyn Rail, American Reader, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2017 (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.