Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Murray

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 delete. Tone 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Murray

WP:BLP1E, failing wp:bio except for the WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK content. Seems to be part of an attack by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Sunday Express Dunblane controversy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Express Dunblane controversy. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:57z 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone with an IP address in the 137.222. range has tried to remove Sceptre's comment twice already. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary or speedy deletion is employed only where there is no BLP-compliant version to which to revert or an obvious means by which to remove purportedly violative material; here one might remove the references to the Dunblane story controversy and be left with the two lead sentences, which assert notability sufficiently that A7 should not apply (and to which no BLP1E issues attach, even if it is those issues that led to the article's creation), and so excision of the material, if you believe it to be present BLP problems (I don't, but it's not an issue to which I care to devote energy), not deletion of the article, is appropriate. (That does not, of course, foreclose our discussion here, where the nominator raises legitimate concerns about the subject's notability, to which we rightly give consideration.) Joe 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge I'd say "merge into the Sunday Express Controversy" article, though that may well be merged/deleted itself. If it gets kept, I'd favour merging this article into that. If the other article gets merged, then also merge this into whatever section in whatever article it gets merged into. Not notable enough in her own right, though it's not a speedy because all that avoiding a speedy requires is that notability is asserted - several references are a pretty strong assertion, though obviously not necessarily proof. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete correct use of ONEEVENT. There is nothing for real notability with or without the story. DGG (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (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.