Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hamilton-Byrne

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton-Byrne[edit]

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

BLP1E applies - since we already have the article at The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group) we have no need for this and it should be deleted and then redirected there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unsure of notability but am sure that the article is very poorly written. However, I don't see BLP1E as a good argument for deletion. The article describes far more than "one" potentially notable event. If kept, the article needs a major overhaul. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not just a duplication of The Family article. It has plenty of extra material on Sarah H-B which isn't in the Family article, and that material is relevant to Wiki because Sarah H-B is notable enough. She was the public face of the issue at the time, she wrote the book on the subject, has numerous mentions in the media etc etc. I don't think the article is poorly written, but I am happy to spruce it up if anyone wants to discuss the problems with me. Sardaka (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She has actively sought media attention since she left The Family, so she qualifies as a relatively high-profile individual; therefore BLP1E does not apply. Graham87 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not notable for only the one event. She is a published writer and speaker who has taken part in debate on cults. She has also started her own charity (mentioned in the article) and still appears frequently in the media. Sardaka (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Graham87 that she has has enough coverage because of seeking it out and getting media coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with Graham87and sardaka Satu Suro 13:15, 23 January 2012 (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.