Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Braha (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. Per the discussion herein and after two relistings, the overall impetus for article retention is present, although more participation would have been ideal. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Braha[edit]

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

Not notable. Marnie the Dog (the dog Braha owns) is more notable than her. She was the tv producer for 3 shows. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, she's doesn't meet notability guidelines of having done something significant. Has mere mentions in articles when they are more about the dog than her, so fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New York Noise. It's the only thing notable about her, and she is already mentioned there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: After some research, I conclude that the subject meets WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current references in the article (as of Feb 17 2015) count as in-depth, independent and reliable sources, plus there are more possible such as this one and this one. Clearly meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this one squeaks by: weak keep. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (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.