The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The verifiability issue, as the principal issue for deletion, seems to have been addressed with the introduction of sources on April 25, and there's no clear consensus that a deletion is warranted on grounds of non-notability. Sandstein ( talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I proposed this for deletion but someone said we shouldn't rely on the lack of internet sources to prove she isn't notable. There are no internet sources other than WP mirrors for this person, as far as I can tell. But it's not a question of notability so much as verifiability... there are no sources for this article, and it has been tagged for sourcing for 2 years. As far as I'm concerned it's a possible hoax until someone can provide a source... see WP:V, the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources, even if sources are hard to find, as they could be if this article isn't a hoax. If this isn't a hoax, I'm sorry it had to come to AFD to get people to provide sources... but it had been tagged for 2 years. There was plenty of time to avoid this. -- Rividian ( talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The verifiability issue, as the principal issue for deletion, seems to have been addressed with the introduction of sources on April 25, and there's no clear consensus that a deletion is warranted on grounds of non-notability. Sandstein ( talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I proposed this for deletion but someone said we shouldn't rely on the lack of internet sources to prove she isn't notable. There are no internet sources other than WP mirrors for this person, as far as I can tell. But it's not a question of notability so much as verifiability... there are no sources for this article, and it has been tagged for sourcing for 2 years. As far as I'm concerned it's a possible hoax until someone can provide a source... see WP:V, the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources, even if sources are hard to find, as they could be if this article isn't a hoax. If this isn't a hoax, I'm sorry it had to come to AFD to get people to provide sources... but it had been tagged for 2 years. There was plenty of time to avoid this. -- Rividian ( talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply