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.
Deleteper nom, non-notable no reliable secondary sources that indicate why she is notable.Maashatra11 (
talk) 14:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. When a serious national newspaper considers that someone is so notable as to report the fact that
she will not be doing something then I think that the case for deletion needs something stronger than unsubstantiated claims of "
just not notable" or "vanity page".
Phil Bridger (
talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I have completely rewritten the article from reliable sources. The article is now fully verified and notability has been established.
Davewild (
talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
JohnCD (
talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - in view of the rewrite, I have relisted this debate and invited those who have contributed to revisit it.
JohnCD (
talk) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm happy with the rewrite which I have now copyedited Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Deleteper nom, non-notable no reliable secondary sources that indicate why she is notable.Maashatra11 (
talk) 14:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. When a serious national newspaper considers that someone is so notable as to report the fact that
she will not be doing something then I think that the case for deletion needs something stronger than unsubstantiated claims of "
just not notable" or "vanity page".
Phil Bridger (
talk) 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I have completely rewritten the article from reliable sources. The article is now fully verified and notability has been established.
Davewild (
talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
JohnCD (
talk) 10:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment - in view of the rewrite, I have relisted this debate and invited those who have contributed to revisit it.
JohnCD (
talk) 10:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm happy with the rewrite which I have now copyedited Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
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.