Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams (2nd nomination)

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. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audra Williams

Non-notable vanity article. Homey 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Morgan Wick 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks more like a user page and should be moved to whoever created user page and the article. -- Mostly Rainy 02:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• When relisting an item that's been up for AFD before, you should provide a direct link to the original debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Williams. Now, that said: the original debate concluded less than two weeks ago, and you haven't presented any new reason to reopen the matter so soon. That ain't how things are done around here. Keep unless you can present a valid new reason to revisit this twice in less than a month. Bearcat 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article at present is somewhat shorter than it was during the first AFD. Almost two weeks ago I asked for sources for several claims. None have been provided and the paragraphs in question have been hidden as a result.Homey 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. Ardenn 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've certainly heard of her. - SimonP 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I've never heard of her, the article certainly seems a good job of asserting a lot of notability. And, assuming that the vast majority relate to this person, 9,360 Google hits is plenty. -- Kicking222 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep barely notable. Any remaining unsourced claims can be removed after the AFD. If that leaves a short stub, that's fine. People can add back material with sources. I added back some (not all), just now, so people could see what's being voted on. Also, if anybody edits this article, please do leave edit summaries if you can. --Rob 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) On review, I see I can't vote keep, due to the lack of independent sources. --Rob 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not (yet) a collection of random non-notable information. Bwithh 05:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my previous comments before on the article's talk page. I always said I did not believe there would be a consensus to delete on an AfD; hence I avoided taking it here, but now that it's here, I believe the subject falls just short of notability. (I also missed the last AfD, by the way.) TheProject 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I still don't see how she is notable. --Eivind^t@c 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, entirely nn. Web forum moderator? Activist? What has she actually done? Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on liberals with consciences who can use a computer. Inclusion = systemic bias. Deizio talk 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and just to get systemic bias out of the way -- Wikipedia is not a repository of mini-bios on conservatives with consciences who can use a computer, either. TheProject 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete her article, though she herself sounds lovely. 100% agree with Deizio. She may be good at generating Google hits but she herself has not yet achieved anything of real note. Vizjim 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I know vanity when I see it 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (added by User:Medico80)
• Delete NN - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deizio. RGTraynor 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO in my view. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. see this discussion Wiederaufbau
  • The definition of vanity is "written by the article subject themselves". This article was not written by Audra; I know the person who wrote it and he's neither Audra nor a personal friend of hers. Bearcat 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:Vanity; "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates". You have thus far failed to convince me, and may fail to convince others, that this article does not fall within the bounds of that particular guideline. Deizio talk 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What part of "the person who wrote it has no personal association of any type with Audra Williams" are you finding difficult to understand? The person who wrote it is not Audra, or a friend of Audra's, or a relative of Audra's, or a personal associate of Audra's. The person who wrote it meets no criterion that would make this a vanity article per Wikipedia:Vanity. Bearcat 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Serves pretty much the same purpose (and I'm not convinced the principal authors are not connected with Audra, even if only in a virtual way ie exchanges with each other on the same chat boards, emails etc,) For instance, this article was discussed on the babble strike board, Audra expressed her desire not to see it deleted and has posted to that effect on the talk page. When someone campaigns not to have an article on themselves deleted that tells me the article serves the same purpose as a vanity page. See [1] Homey 00:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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.