Deletion of Mira Gonzalez (2nd nomination)

Comment: DOES NOT meet  requirements. Gonzalez is NOT regarded as an important figure nor is she widely cited. Her concept, theory and technique is not new, she has not created a well-known work and her work is not significant. She fails EVERY requirement. Furthermore, her "notability" is based on the state of sourcing in articles. The edits (and the page itself were created by her specifically to create a sense of notability. This pages fails the meet even the most minimal requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOET)

Comment: This article seems to be attracting 'contributors' who have little or no regard for Wikipedia's rules, especially regarding |biographies of living persons, for dubious agendas -- possibly people associated with the poet (or maybe the poet herself?), maybe as a way to attract attention, or bring more eyeballs to this page? For example, there is vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Gonzalez&type=revision&diff=743137613&oldid=743137201 here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Gonzalez&type=revision&diff=743196603&oldid=743187708 here and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Gonzalez&type=revision&diff=743136870&oldid=743116218 here -- that is, the vandalism (seems to be) not just the work of one person, but numerous ones, which can consume much time here trying to keep the article shipshape and without slanders or smears (I had to search back into the history to get to a neutral-sounding version such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Gonzalez&oldid=705930834 this one). I suggest that if the article is kept (which it should -- she's clearly a notable poet) that steps be taken to semi-protect or full-protect this article so that only established contributors in good standing can make changes. So I'm copy-pasting my 'keep' comments from the previous AfD discussion. (from first AfD:)  Notable poet, intelligent impartial critical reviews of her poetry, references meet GNG. Plus, I read parts of her poems; she is a skilled writer. Also, check out the https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Mira_Gonzalez pageviews averaging 40-50 day spiking recently to 1700+, suggesting she is building an audience, probably with young thumb tribe types. True, I have never heard of most of these sources, but the writing in them is intelligent, grammatically coherent, and sharp, suggesting they're authentic. Commentary about her poetry is not one-sided and spammy but critically adept, such as http://theeconomymagazine.com/I-Will-Never-Be-Beautiful-Enough-to-Make-Us-Beautiful-Together-Mira this review, plus this review in http://www.nylon.com/articles/new-female-poets# Nylon magazine -- note that Nylon (magazine) has a wiki-article. This reviewer http://therumpus.net/2013/07/i-will-never-be-beautiful-enough-to-make-us-beautiful-together-by-mira-gonzales/ here knows poetry sufficiently to use terms like Anaphora (rhetoric)|anaphora which I might have thought was a woman's name. Plus Gonzalez is up for a possible poetry award from http://www.believermag.com/issues/201403/?read=believer_poetry_award this magazine. She is getting attention from alt-lit pop culture sources such as http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/18194/1/tao-lin-selects-mira-gonzalez this one. Her publisher is a start-up by a guy http://www.columbiajournalist.org/www/343-independent-publisher-goes-against-the-ebook-tide/story with new thoughts about publishing. Numerous sources, meets the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Nobody has offered any explanation of why the significant coverage in independent reliable sources listed in the article and above is insufficient for notability per . Special:Contributions/86.17.222.157|86.17.222.157
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)