Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary-Anne Kenworthy

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. J04n(talk page) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Anne Kenworthy[edit]

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

Are there notability guidelines for pimps? No joke. Or does WP:ANYBIO apply? In that case, I don't see notability. Also, Aaronlangtrees (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have no such notability guideline, but she is a madam, operating large and notable brothels with the tacit approval of the local governments. She has been covered extensively in reliable sources including the New York Times as well as many in Australia. She's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 and COI is not a reason for deletion but for clean up. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no special notability requirements for madams, but that only means that she has to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. She does. --NellieBly (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there's no shortage of sources (she's had local/national/international media attention) so there's plenty of material to work from. Shouldn't take too much work to overcome the COI influence, and the article is not too bad as it stands currently. Katherine (talk) 10:04, 24 February 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.