Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerrie Kelly

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrie Kelly

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kerrie Kelly (edit | 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)

Only 1 article links to this. Could not find SIGCOV. A search for sources mainly comes up with a namesake American interior designer. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A lot of sources are just routine coverage of her entering or leaving job positions, but there are a few with some analysis: [1] (biography in the last few paragraphs), [2] (contains a bit of analysis about her departure), [3]. I can't decide whether this coverage is enough to scrape past WP:NBIO. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Going to say delete because there is very little substance in the sources I found. Two of them are mostly routine coverage with a bit of analysis. The moneymanagement.com.au source is non-routine but short. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2025 (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.