Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (third 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, bad faith nomination by sockpuppet. The article still needs better sourcing though, for some leads see below. ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden (third nomination)

Page is attack site; not notable. Stompin' Tom 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to draw the attention of readers to this. CJCurrie 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not now an attack page, merely a short stub saying that she exists. Google showed 57,200 finds that do not contain the word "Wikipedia". Anthony Appleyard 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Rachel Marsden has been expanded much but still is not an attack page. Anthony Appleyard 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy keep. Marsden is notable, and the so-called "attacks" actually concern verifiable information that has been published in several reliable sources. The recent ArbComm ruling on this article does not prevent material critical of Marsden from being included, notwithstanding that certain contributors oppose such inclusion. (For more information, review the Request for clarification here.) CJCurrie 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per CJCurrie. Kla'quot 20:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There have been two other AFDs for this article, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Marsden and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Marsden_(2nd_nomination). Both were speedy keeps: a lexis-nexis search for Marsden produces some 300 articles about her and a couple dozen written by her. Bucketsofg 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would close as speedy keep but the article suffers from lack of sources. As long as that isn't fixed this should not be speedied. ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above _SUBWAYguy 21:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no way in which this page is an attack site, and I would seriously question the motivation of the editor who labelled it as such. The previous AfDs have no relevance: we are considering the article as it stands. And I see it as a simple, straightforward biographical article about a marginally notable columnist. I note that the subject of the article objected to a previous version of it: this, as I say, past history and the current version is surely ok.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and investigate initiator This article has been put up for AfD twice before, both by accounts later blocked for being sockpuppets of the same person. Combined with rather inflammatory reason for deletion, "attack page", would lead me to wonder if this account will be proven to be the same as well. SirFozzie 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirms that User:Stompin' Tom is a sock of User:Arthur Ellis at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis Bucketsofg 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also the subject of a recent ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attack page is the term used by the Arbitration Committee, which also said better no article than an attack article. This article was shaping up into another attack article, and the recently-archived discussion shows this to be the case. If this article is not deleted, it should be stubbed. Stompin' Tom
Keep --Tom 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer an attack article, if it has problems with edit wars, so be it. They can be dealt with, instead of swept under the rug witha deletion. She's still notable enough for an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33 hits in the Toronto Star archive[1], 7 hits in the Globe and Mail archive [2]this CBC news report[3] and this documentary by Emmy and Edward R. Murrow award winning reporter Bob McKeown [4] for the award winning and prestigous CBC investigative reporting series "the fifth estate" all speak to the notability of both Rachel Marsden and the sexual harassment cases she has been centrally involved in. Lotuslander 23:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep frivolous nomination. Individual is clearly notable. Resolute 00:05, 27 December 2006 (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.