Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryll Barron
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 12 June 2006 (Closing debate; result was Delete. Subject may barely pass WP:BIO, request respected.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 18:54, 12 June 2006 by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) (Closing debate; result was Delete. Subject may barely pass WP:BIO, request respected.)
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Subject barely passes WP:BIO, with no compelling reasons to keep, request respected.. Shell babelfish 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject requests deletion. Feels that she doesn't meet criteria under WP:BIO. No opinion on the matter, just bringing it here as requested for a community decision. Shell babelfish 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete With a published book from a major publisher, she does pass my inclusion criteria. However, I feel we should respect subjects' wishes when they don't want to have an article (though obviously only in borderline cases). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep With the unreferenced bit about her opinions on people from another nation removed, now a very flattering biography of a notable author and writiter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Anti-vanity just swings it. -- GWO
- Keep - Err ... where does the subject request deletion? The Talk page references inaccuracies, but the article now seems quite well sourced. Even given that, her publishing credits pass the WP:BIO bar. RGTraynor 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- She wrote to m:OTRS to request deletion in addition to emailing Jimbo. Shell babelfish 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep subject does seem to meet inclusion criteria; article is well-referenced and there's sufficient information already available to the general public elsewhere. If there is another reason for wishing to be deleted (such as a legal issue) I would suggest requesting an office action. Ziggurat 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. She isn't too notable (just 75 Googles), so we should respect her request for it to be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Close but just not notable enough GassyGuy 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An orphan, to boot. Bare notability is necessary but not sufficient to keep an article. +sj + 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If the subject requests deletion, it's a matter of courtesy to delete. Anyway, people who want to know about her can go to Google. Wikipedia is not the only source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.1.244 (talk)
- Week keep Same opinions as above but I also share RGTraynor's view on this one. --Pilot|guy (roger that) 14:08, 10 June 2006 (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.