Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Kotulski

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 (speedy of relist per nominator request). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Kotulski[edit]

Self-promotional article that doesn't appear to establish notability. -WarthogDemon 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Self-promotional, yes, but it's not a case of blatant advertising, either (which would violate WP policy). Ms Kotulski seems notable enough. What the article needs is sources to independent media, and a quick Google indicates there may be quite a few. --Targeman 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with Molly McKay. Kotulski is slightly less notable than her partner (100 articles vs. 300 articles), but has received attention for her book outside of the context of the wedding stunt with McKay. --Dhartung | Talk 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. No independent external links. -- RHaworth 08:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable. The article needs references, but they do exist. Atropos 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The fellow is notable.. Though you may not agree with his agenda, he does make the cut for notability. Shoessss | Chat 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Agree? Agenda? I did not AfD this because I disliked the agenda and quite the contrary, I am all for gay rights. -WarthogDemon 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry -WarthogDemon that I came across as pointing a finger! I am just wondering why this article was nominated for deletion when it clearly was about a notable individual? Thanks for you input. Shoessss | Chat 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No harm done. Well first of all I was concerned with conflict of interest. (It seems the person is writing about themself from the looks of the username.) Second I really wasn't sure about notability or not; an admin declined speedy and later suggested on his talk page that I should take this to afd so I did. -WarthogDemon 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when in doubt it is reasonable to ask the community to have a voice. DGG (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a little research before I ran out of time. :) They've got third party sources, including NPR. The article needs more sourcing, but I think she satisfies notability. --Moonriddengirl 14:39, 7 August 2007 (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.