Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Hall

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Hall

I speedied this page, but the author protested, so I'm bringing it here as I probably should have done in the first place. This is an apparent "internet celebrity", it's up to you to decide if she meets WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. Grandmasterka 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone involved... The version I deleted wasn't this well-referenced, but I should have waited longer (I usually do.) I found the page because it was one I had had deleted before (a much worse version) and it was on my watchlist. If the delete votes will withdraw, we can end this. The other two AfDs still stand. Grandmasterka 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Granted, not everyone has heard of Leslie Hall, but she is a notable internet celebrity as evidenced by her verifiable coverage provided by TechTV, [1] Bust Magazine, [2] Instinct Magazine, [3] The Boston Globe, [4] and her leading as one of three celebrities of the same ilk selected to represent net neutrality at wearetheweb.org. Seeing as how this figure passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC with flying colors, it would be appreciated if you would kindly provide some sort of rationale for your current nomination beyond someone protesting an invalid speedy deletion made no more than thirty minutes into editing an article. How stifling. RFerreira 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Is this a vanity page? Clearly doesn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. One mention in the Boston Globe human interest section doesn't do it. —ptk✰fgs 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  The Boston Globe article was not a mention, it was a full length interview. Have you bothered to review the sources? RFerreira 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  It was a "local interest" article. Carrying on for three pages doesn't mitigate the triviality of the interview. —ptk✰fgs 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  The article currently cites three articles, not one. Unless you're suggesting that coverage in Bust Magazine and Instinct Magazine are of local interest only as well. There are additional citations which can be added in from this page, but this is an incomplete list based on my own Google searches. RFerreira 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Oddly, I've actually heard of her before just now, but WP:MUSIC is miles away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  The person passes WP:BIO as a noted internet celebrity, as well as WP:MUSIC for being "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". Unless you know of other notable gem sweater wearing white women from Iowa performing in Boston. RFerreira 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  RFerreira, are you serious? WP:MUSIC says "notable style" for a reason. Gazpacho 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Leslie is as well known on the Internet as I am. While I'll admit that I hadn't heard of her before being asked to participate in the We Are the Web video, it didn't take much research to find coverage of her in the mainstream press. She may not be notable per WP:MUSIC, but she does meet WP:BIO, IMAO. The original speedy deletion does seem a bit like the result of an itchy trigger finger, too; I hope that it does not have any influence on voters here. I'd been pondering writing the article myself, but decided that that might be seen as coming too close to a violation of WP:AUTO. - Jay Maynard 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for meeting WP:BIO. I don't agree that WP should have a higher notability standard than the Boston Globe. hateless 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if the Globe was a local itnerest thing, the Bust and Instinct thing certainly meet it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if its good enough for the Boston Globe, its good enough for wiki... at least its sourced for petes sake... WP:BIO requirements are more than met.  ALKIVAR™ 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Odd but harmless, and sourced, and sort of interesting. Aye-Aye 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - passed WP:BIO with multiple non-trivial publications about her, and it's all soruced too. -- Whpq 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How stupid is it that an internet encyclopedia would delete an entry on an internet celebrity? Passes WP:BIO with flying colors. Crispinus211 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's the lead in the www.wearetheweb.org net neutrality video as well. robot captain 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the person is notable and verifiable too no reason for erasure Yuckfoo 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO. --Myles Long 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm from Denmark and knew nothing about this person until I saw the Net Neutrality song, then I went here to learn more about her, if it wasn't for Wikipedia, how would I have learned these facts? --Opspin 07:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is what makes Wikipedia fun. Saw her on wearetheweb.org, came here to find our more about her, and was amused by her career and the interviews linked into in the entry. Anyway, she's notable. --Pworms 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, she's notable. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not hugely famous, but enough third-party verifiability and interest to have an article about - David Gerard 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This an unusually interesting subject fit for Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Perhaps not with "flying colors", but this article does meet established biography guidelines as well as third party verifiability policies. Yamaguchi先生 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is notable enough for me to have just come to Wikipedia to find out who she was. The should be enough. --FeldBum 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  You know, that's an interesting standard for notability...wonder if it could be codified? Jay Maynard 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I came to this page to find out who she was after seeing references to her out there on the 'Net. I'm quite let down the few times that wikipedia can not tell me the details on a reference. That's most of what it's here for. - aa

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.