The result was keep.
With the days passing since it's nomination on 19 March 2009, the sentiment of the !voters was clearly drifting away from deletion, so the question was not if but how to keep it. Keep and merge !votes are roughly equaling in strength of argument, with a slight numerical advantage for merge. But there is no consensus amongst those !voting merge as to where to merge it to, although they all agree that the information should be kept in Wikipedia. Given this, I closed it as "keep" for now but with no objection to a later merge if there is a consensus for it on the related talk page(s). So Why 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable attack against Paula Murray by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Paula Murray failing wp:blp#Sources and wp:SPS. All of that's fine for blogs, not for an encyclopedia: WP:COATRACK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Murray. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19 t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.
With the days passing since it's nomination on 19 March 2009, the sentiment of the !voters was clearly drifting away from deletion, so the question was not if but how to keep it. Keep and merge !votes are roughly equaling in strength of argument, with a slight numerical advantage for merge. But there is no consensus amongst those !voting merge as to where to merge it to, although they all agree that the information should be kept in Wikipedia. Given this, I closed it as "keep" for now but with no objection to a later merge if there is a consensus for it on the related talk page(s). So Why 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable attack against Paula Murray by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Paula Murray failing wp:blp#Sources and wp:SPS. All of that's fine for blogs, not for an encyclopedia: WP:COATRACK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Murray. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19 t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply