Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Yeomans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Yeomans

Kelly Yeomans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have no idea how this has survived since July 2006, but regardless...

This page is a non-notable biography (in my opinion), which verges on an attack page (CSD G10) and nearly meets CSD A7. There is some form of notability in the two end paragraphs, and I was reluctant to speedy it for this and for the length at which it has been around. Regardless, in my opinion, delete. Daniel Bryant 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This was the version immediately after being nominated for AfD. Daniel Bryant 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though it doesn't look much like an attack page to me. However, the notability assertion here is very, very weak, and there aren't any sources attesting to it or anything else that could be considered notability outside that assertion. --Coredesat 09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just took a first crack at cleaning up the article and improving the sources. I'm sure it could stand more work, but I think it's salvageable. Mwelch 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless her case led to drastic changes in policy it doesn't seem notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets standards for notability. Not importasnt, but that is not required. No harm in keeping. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sources are clearly present. N is weak, but there--BBC & AP coverage is surely sufficient. On who is this page supposed to be an attack--if the aggressors were named it would be another matter. DGG 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of reputable secondary sources, though should be moved to citation formatting. Smee 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Seems to be sourced well. As long as things like this cause a media bonanza, their subject will be notable here since they meet WP:BIO.--Mus Musculus 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 23:34, 22 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.