Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Abela
- 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. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deborah Abela[edit]
- Deborah Abela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet notability guideline for biographies of living people. Yesterday I had looked at WP:Reliable Sources and found this section. The reference leads to a website in which I don't think is reliable. Minimac (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Author has 33 books listed at WorldCat.org and she's published by Random House Australia. She meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I've added the WorldCat reference to the article. It needs expansion, not deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 21:56, 3 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) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deborah Abela is published by Oxford University Press, WorldCat.org by Random House Australia and Simon & Schuster. It took seconds to find this, thisthis this and this, all of which confirm a sufficient body of work and sufficient prominence to meet WP:GNG. The list of awards [1] also support the subject's notability and would only take a short while to verify (here's one of them. I've got the page on my watch list and will come back to it when I've finished what I'm doing right now. Deletion is really not justifiable on the grounds of lack of notability.--Plad2 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have further expanded the article and found plenty of reliable references in a relatively short period of time - more than sufficient to justify the notability of this article. Dan arndt (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current version of the article demonstrates notability. Subject clearly satisfies notability requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is well established, even several awards. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:05, 9 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.