Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roslyn Fuller

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. The last few reasons for keeping, as well as the ensuing improvements, outweigh the reasons for deletion here. MuZemike 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roslyn Fuller

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

Non-notable article lacking GHits and GNEWS. Included references in article do not show substantial coverage. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of the article and would appreciate any guidance on removing doubts around notability and verifiability. I have added several online and off-line sources since the initial delete request - please review and advise.87.198.37.109 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gladly. Review guidelines for notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and in Ms. Fuller's case, biographies on living persons at the respective links - all you'll need is going to be there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll change my mind if improvements can be made. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the first pages I have ever added to Wikipedia and I am a bit confused. I have had a look at notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and biographies on living persons but I still don't understand why this will be deleted. The article has a lot of offline and online sources and Ms. Fuller is quite known as an arts model in Ireland, so I am not sure what else to add to avoid deletion. Thanks for your help!Abraedt (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have received a lot of good feedback on how I can improve this article (thanks Dennis). Please give me 1-2 days to edit the article.Abraedt (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you have until the 4th yet. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See WP:PORNBIO for how to evaluate the notability of her work as a glamour model, WP:PROF for her work as an academic, and WP:CREATIVE for her work as an author. For me, the mainstream newspaper articles cited in the article from Metro Ireland, Sunday World Ireland, Irish News of the World, and Irish Daily Star are enough for WP:PORNBIO #5, but that's not an area I have a lot of experience in judging so regulars at that part of Wikipedia might have better opinions. She clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF (just a student, hasn't had a chance to demonstrate independent academic accomplishment) and I didn't see any Google news archive coverage of her creative writing. By the way, the article sources some information to LiveJournal, probably a violation of WP:RS. But there are enough other sources that I think simply removing that source would be the way to go rather than using one bad source as a justification for deleting the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added additional sources to support notability. I have also replaced the Livejournal source with the primary source the information was taken from. Abraedt (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have reviewed the articles. Unfortunately none are amount to substantial coverage. Additionally, I cannot confirm those refs that point to an item lacking URLs are indeed valid - I have gone to the sites and searched on the name - they are essentially unverifiable and unsupported by the site referenced by the author. ttonyb (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure I understand your concerns. Just because a source does not have a representation online surely does not mean it does not exist or that it is not verifiable as I have given exact publication names, dates and in one case even an ISBN number. There are many articles here with primarily offline sources. Abraedt (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof is not remotely attained. Other notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Found online version of Sunday World Article and linked to URL. Please review notability as glamour model Abraedt (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I verified a few of the press reports and found two others (not significant enough to add, but helping to establish notability). Seems notable enough in total. (And, to comment on the above, lack of a URL has never been a reason to exclude a source.) Zero^talk 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had doubts before about this one and didn't comment at the time, but now see this article taking shape and vote for a keep. Notability beginning to become clearer. Tris2000 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 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.