Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda King

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 after improvement. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda King

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

Not notable except for having been an ex-girlfriend of Charles Bukowski. Hasn't done anything on her own that was covered in the press, apparently. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG as a search for her name and poet only gets 10 ghits or less. Meets or exceeds invalid criteria as her being best known for being the ex-girlfriend does not transfer notability. --Morenooso (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significant factor is not what she is known for, but how well she is known for it, i.e. the degree of coverage she has received herself, even if the catalyst for this was an association with someone else. See sources below. Ty 07:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Charles_Bukowski#Black_Sparrow_years, where she is mentioned. If sources are found (there may be ones in print), I will consider keeping the article. There is no purpose in deletion, when someone may search for her name, if only in connection with Charles_Bukowski. Some refs:[1][2][3][4] Google books:[5] Ty 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at the minimum merge and redirect). Changed to keep per above sources. There is plenty to write an article about her both during her time with Bukowski (e.g. this book - see p. 85 on) and more recently. Ty 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work...Modernist (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty's sources. Traxs7 (Talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't know if this is relevant but I just wanted to note that we do have an article on Joan Vollmer. Bus stop (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, or failing that, strong delete. Notability is not inherited, so I really don't see a claim of the significance or importance of King in the article at all. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty's sources. I have added a reference to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ty's rationale (yes, I know he !voted keep). There are sources, and frankly, there's probably enough for a showing of bare notability. However, this is not a biography, and it likely never will be - instead, its a vehicle for talking about the subject's relationship with a highly notable person. Since that's what the sources discuss, that's really where we need to cover her. Maintaing this as a separate article is bound to lead to an undue emphasis on the few years she was with Bukowski. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:41, 7 May 2010 (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.