Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Cameron

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth_Cameron

This appears to be a page created by it's name sake. It is my opinion that this individual is not notable enough to warrent an article. Please note that many of the claims made are ludicrusly overhyped, such as being widely known in Scotland, when making a decision Jefffire 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm not sure about the vanity, and also this Edinburgh University Students' Association seems to be a well-maintained page. If the organization is notable, its president should be, no? On the other hand, a claim of "widely known in Scotland" is probably false. --Deville (Talk) 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I don't believe Wikipedia has, or should have, a principle that if an organization is notable, its president is too -- particularly with regard to student organizations whose officers tend to change annually. --Metropolitan90 08:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable enough, give her a few years tho, and I'm sure we'll need to have an article on her! :) Mikker ^... 14:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete. As an Edinburgh resident, I'd say Ms Cameron is regularly in the press and relatively prominent - much more so than other Students' Association Presidents I have come across in the past.
• Delete. I fail to see anything in that article that says she merits an article. Vegaswikian 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While don't think Ms. Cameron is bored / vain enough to create the article (I can think of many people who'd do it as a joke), as per Mikkerpikker, but one and half year too early. ;-) -- KTC 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it! I work with Ruth on a day to day basis and i would say she is wholly deserving of an entry on wikipedia! And I tell you something else, there is no way she wrote that article herself - it's full of spelling errors! Ruth's English lit degree, her spells as editor of hype and student plus her internship with the Observer assure me that she has nothing to do with this. Everything in this entry is accurate. She might not be renound across Scotland quite like an MSP but she is extremely well known within the Higher Education sector and that is a credit to the hard work she has put in this year. Credit where credit is due - keep the article, I think it's great. Kezia Dugdale
• Delete - nn vanity page. Lbbzman 17:58, 30 March 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.