Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeBarra Mayo

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The result was Withdrawn. (aeropagitica) 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeBarra Mayo

[NB nom has been withdrawn in light of subsequent revisions to the article. Tyrenius 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]
Subject may be notable, but this is clearly a vanity article authored by User:KarateLady. WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographical articles. fbb_fan 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 9w6d 06:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I agree with WP:AUTO, and I think this article absolutely must be rewritten by someone with outside perspective. Notability is established with appropriate sources, making this an improper subject for deletion. Erechtheus 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:AUTO isn't sufficient reason to delete the article. Instead, it needs to be cleaned up. -- Whpq 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.-Kmaguir1 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So have Senate interns [refactored per BLP].NN.-Kmaguir1 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  As she has regularly appeared in the media, perhaps you could expand on your statement to give it more credibility. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One point of subject's notability during the 80s in addition to her bodybuilding awards is evidenced by 1986 membership in the Author's Guild, which at the time had strict requirements for membership...members needed at least 3 major publications with credible publishers. None of DeBarra's articles were "self published." I am a researcher who specializes in health and wellness research as well as other areas. Various writers and researchers have profiled DeBarra Mayo. Library or newspaper archives can provide validation. I have done clean up on the article and can do more if needed. I have also created other pages to provide historical reference of the "fitness craze" of the 80s. Thank you. KarateLadyKarateLady 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The implication by the nominator appears to be that you are indeed the subject of the article. WP:AUTO strongly discourages the editing of an article by its subject. Erechtheus 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dlyons493 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Vanity" is not in itself a reason to delete an article. If this is the only objection, then the article should be kept. Tyrenius 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I am new to Wikipedia and still learning a lot of what is appropriate and what is not. I plan to add many more articles related to health and wellness and I plan to add many more authors and writers who are not yet listed on Wikipedia. I am indeed the author of this article and will be happy to delete or change whatever is needed on this article to conform to the policy. I welcome any other help or comments. I probably went overboard with this article in an attempt to make it factually correct. Thank you for the good input to make it better. KarateLadyKarateLady 01:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per nom. Vanity is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is notable. I suggest the nom be withdrawn. Tyrenius 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her achievements make her sufficiently notable, and claims seem to be well documented and sourced, but needs a rewrite. I have applied an NPOV template to the page for now. Ohconfucius 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Cleaned up I've been through the article and cleaned it up for NPOV etc. Still needs some attention. Tyrenius 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems like a good article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• AfD Withdrawn in light of the improvements to the article; hopefully it will not revert to the vanity piece it was at the time of the nomination. fbb_fan 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seeing that even the nominator has withdrawn. Vanity is not necessarily a reason for deletion if the subject is notable, like this one. RFerreira 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Tyrenius, the subject is notable. bbx 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although it could use more external links to articles from outside sources exploring her accomplishments in the fitness world. She does appear to be notable, based upon a cursory Web/Amazon.com search. Ruthfulbarbarity 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (though note nominator has withrawn), auto doesn't override acknowledged notabilty. Article should be kept if notability can be established and if article is verifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:46, 31 August 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.