Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination)

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 Speedy keep per SNOW. No valid reason to delete and appears that there never will be. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

Marsden is not particularly notable - the article is more trouble than its worth, the site of constant drama and the subject wants it deleted. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

STRONG keep. Looking through the references, she seems quite notable to me. I don't really see something getting vandalism as a good reason to delete said something, which really seems like the only thing here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - references establish notability on multiple grounds, several times over, beyond all reasonable doubt. The information is already in the public domain: the subject's desire to have it removed from Wikipedia does not carry any weight. Skomorokh 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a growing trend of "Please delete mah article" on AfDs these days... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thirteen minutes might be a bit quick for a snowball keep. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a prediction that this did this Afd did not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding - it is the closing admin's decision when to judge the probability of that prediction's chances of being true is sufficiently high to close. Regards, Skomorokh 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article that has passed AfD numerous times before would certainly suggest to the objective viewer that it passes notability requirements. A Google search and news search would suggest the same. And controversy is never a reason to delete an article: see Race and Intelligence. Joshdboz (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and police without mercy. Notability asserted even beyond marginal notability. A couple of odd observations here though. If we were to invoke BLP the proper course would be to cover the event. Do we really want that in this case? Second, any nom with less than 100 edits who leaves right after AfD'ing a BLP makes me wonder what is going on. Sorry, I'm well aware of AGF but certain things can't be ignored that easily. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been here for a year but not very consistently. This matter and other things I've read have caused me to lose interest in continuing with wikipedia. I just thought I'd try to get this thing deleted before I left and saw some support for this on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Also, since I couldn't find any AFD since this whole matter became a big issue I thought it was worth testing the floor. If you still think I'm somehow acting in bad faith I don't know what more there is to convince you that I'm not. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, since the article was deleted, the previous AfDs weren't immediately visible so I'll take your word for it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article establish notability very very easily. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and continuing to seek out speaking engagements trumps the wishes of the subject. Vandalism is not rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good and reliable sources that go back a decade. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (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.