Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashleigh Whitfield

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. The challenge was that Ashleigh Whitfield is not notable. The consensus is that she is notable, and I would like to thank MichaelQSchmidt for listing the independent sources that have noted her. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ashleigh Whitfield

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

Non-notable newsreader Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the following message left on my talk page last night by MichaelQSchmidt. Local notability is, generally speaking, still notability, and WP:N holds no prejudice against geographical clustering of significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only have a few minutes, but I did find a few articles that deal with the woman and her work... Sunderland Echo 1, Sunderland Echo 2, Sunderland Echo 3, Sunderland Echo 4, Evening Chronicle... but it all seems to be local coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There isn't much here, to be honest, but I think the sourcing we have meets minimum standards, if only barely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:17, 21 April 2010 (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.