Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Gorman

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 22:02Z

[edit] Suzy Gorman

Suzy Gorman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Found while browsing Canidates for deletion, the deletion reason was "{{db-spam}}". I'm failing to see how this is spam. I might be missing something here, but this is not blatant advertising as far as I can see.... ideas? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep She appears to be notable, can't see why it's been suggested for deletion Jules1975 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously notable photographer. Not that this is a guideline, but I knew who she was as soon as I read her name, and I'm not exactly a photo buff. Dppowell 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep (as article creator). Because of Gorman's famous "gruff" demeanor, she tends to accumulate enemies who attack the article from time to time. I'm a bit surprised that this went to an actual AfD debate, since the db tag was a pretty obvious bad faith nom from a throwaway account: Henriducard (talk · contribs), and the tag probably should have just been deleted as vandalism. For the record though, yes, Gorman clearly passes WP:BIO. Notable body of work, multiple non-trivial mentions in major press. Otherwise I wouldn't have written the article in the first place.  ;) --Elonka 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per elonka ffm yes? 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepNotable photographer who gets bonus points for the ...er...uh... quality of her own photograph. TonyTheTiger 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of "non-trivial" references, etc. If there's an issue involving how the article is presented, then WP:BOLD should be considered. 23skidoo 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable, what's the problem? Nick 80.225.131.144 17:57, 13 February 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.