Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Broman

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Broman

Sandra Broman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable person. No claim of notability, no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. The "award" isn't enough. JJL 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Google News Archive shows a couple of Oz profiles but behind paywalls. If other sources could be found, just possible. Otherwise, NN author/website owner. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If 6+ months of the article existence it can't get beyond two lines, she can't be notable.(What year did she win that award in anyway? 2121 CE ?)jonathon 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no assertion of notability, no cites, per WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Note that the article, to this point, has not been tagged as needing references. I've now marked it with {{unref}}. The article does make an assertion of notability as being voted Home and Gardens DIY Mum of the Year, as well as being an author. A search through Google News indicates that she has received coverage from multiple indpendent reliable sources though the articles now have slipped behind pay walls. See this Gnews search. As such, it appears that sources do exist (within a physical library) to find provide sources, establish notability and meet verifiability requirements. -- Whpq 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. So she won an award. Millions of people win awards, but where are the multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources about this person? Oh, there aren't any? Burntsauce 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there may actually be reliable sources. Did you check the Gneews results I posted above? -- Whpq 20:59, 29 October 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.