Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Cottingham

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP. SYSS Mouse 28 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Cottingham

• Non-notable, vanity. -- Natalinasmpf 04:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - She was on the list of 2 year old requests. I'm sure the person who requested doesn't care anymore but still why not. If they are non-notable then why weren't they taken off the request list a long time ago like it says. Matthewjhale
• Weak keep. Borderline notable. See [1], for instance. Almost 1000 google hits [2]. Pburka 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 07:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - she does appear to have some notability. I would encourage the author of the page to spend some time making sure this article doesn't end up an orphan though: apart from utility pages nothing links to this article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I wonder who it is that wanted it? I see that nixie links to it in her sandbox, but other than that all links are from Requested lists. The book itself was substantial, although as a person I don't think the author is particularly notable. Geogre 17:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Eleven published works in three countries seems sufficiently notable to me. I have added a bibliography to the stub.—Theo (Talk) 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination apparently based on a false premise. CalJW 19:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. She has published a number of works so is a notable author. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.