Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Malena

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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Malena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My dead grandmother is more notable. Sorry. Nnborg (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)— Nnborg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of coverage in multiple sources. This person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the sources needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Comment: the nomination is pretty close to one of the examples given in WP:OTHERSTUFF; I urge the nominator to write an article on his dead grandmother. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just doubled the number of references. Kaimahi (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has four times the number of sources as when the WP:SPA nominated it. Kaimahi (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, it only has four sources altogether. But it is a start. I suggest moving it to Draft space where it can be worked on, if you're open to that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:Ban 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  - Draft is better than no place, I guess. Kaimahi (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been some acknolwedged improvement to the article, I'm giving this a relist to allow editors to weigh in on the article as it now stands, and also to allow for a potential respose by Kaimahl to Sportfan5000's suggestion. I don't see urgent enough issues here to rush. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - this sounds like the best option, so it can be worked on and improved further. I can't really determine any outstanding notability either way, but I can sort of see how, with some editing, it could pass. Mabalu (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, or userfy if the consensus is that it needs further work on sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC) FWIW, by it, I mean the article, not the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons: improvements to the article, and procedurally, because of the insulting tone by the SPA nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are all extremely local. This is not the type of independent, unrelated coverage we sully expect for someone to generate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (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.