Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Veitch (2nd 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 Keep with caveat. That is, a merger discussion can still be held at the talk page. Just not outright deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Veitch[edit]

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

No notability except for JC's Girls, which already contains the necessary biographical information about her. I do not see any evidence that she was of any particular notability in her previous career. Possible redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's been widely written about (and a documentary written about her) in multiple reliable sources, which is the essence of WP:GNG [1][2][3][4]. I'm not sure what motivates this repeat AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met. The first AfD was 10+ years ago and had pretty lame arguments. A repeat AfD is reasonable, but it does appear that notability appears established. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. redirect Samat lib (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no plausible reason for AfD to mandate a reverse merge of the sources from JC's Girls. This is an editorial decision. Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least perhaps we can at least remove some of the duplication. The article on her df\does not need to do more than mention the organization, and vice-versa. Doingmorethan that is saying everything twice,and is a promotional technique, no matter whether or not there is notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can also start an editing policy forum to take on such discussions. We can call it AfEP (Articles for Editing Policy). The forum here is AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality is terrible, but distinct from notability. Adequate coverage, however badly written. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still don't know what to make of JC's Girls (I did an early GA review in the manner of Louis Theroux), but the sources found by Sionk show this person meets WP:GNG. The AfD wasn't correctly filed : "No notability except for JC's Girls, which already contains the necessary biographical information about her" is an argument for redirecting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JC's Girls the coverage of her is in the contex of that organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at worst merge or reverse merge with JC's girls. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2017 (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.