Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Jess Leaverland

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 keep. I'vee also be revdeling the copyvios that were expunged Courcelles 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Jess Leaverland

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

Declined speedy with some talk page discussion about notability. An AFD can settle it. No !vote from me. causa sui (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, even though the tone and content of the article are unacceptable. Wikipedia is international, and the question of her notability in the UK alone is not the whole point, though I think she passes GNG guidelines on that with profiles in the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail as well as a lot of exposure on the BBC to name a few examples. The only question is whether it can be dismissed under the WP:EVENT guidelines, but it is 18 months since her win and the coverage and interest has been sustained long enough. The rule, therefore, must be improve not delete. --AJHingston (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I speedied this not because of any lack of notability (on which I take no position), but rather because it is blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Several parts of it, possibly even more than I noticed, are copyright violations, which generally call for immediate deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO1E her win could be sufficiently covered under the article on the contest, the promotional tone only strengthlens the need for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree that she fails WP:BIO1E when there are articles such as this in the Daily Mail, this in the Sunday Mercury, this in the Evening Times, all long after the "event" in question (in which she was watched by 70 million TV viewers). Those are in addition to what is already currently cited, and just a sampling of the more recent coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO #9. Also, the article has been somewhat NPOV'd since it was nominated, doesn't look like an Ad anymore. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (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.