Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Shine

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. KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Shine

Betty_Shine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it seems to be more of a personal promotion than an article. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This cut-and-paste nomination streak is bothersome, and suggests kneejerk nomination with no attempt to uncover whether the subject is notable. In Shine's case, she appears to be. UK Google returns nearly twelve thousand hits, she's got a dozen or more books currently in print, and among those hits are reviews and citations from the Observer, the BBC and other such sources. All that took me about four minutes to research. The article certainly needs work and improved sourcing, but AfD is not the proper venue for that. RGTraynor 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• It does need more sourcing, but I am inclined to believe that the series of nominations is an attempt to prove a WP:POINT about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Books. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mmm, after reading that, I concur; this (and the whole chain of them, come to that) certainly now strikes me as a bad faith nomination. RGTraynor 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources when others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Very notable, most likely a bad faith nomination. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:51, 12 March 2007 (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.