Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinead Desmond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sinead Desmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Possibly notable, but rife with WP:MOS and WP:TONE issues Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Content issues are not a criteria for deletion. tagged the article for clean up. --neon white talk 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be notable (see these sources, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4]). There are some issues with the content, but nothing that can't be fixed, and the article has only just been created. Silverfish (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my Keep. The original article seems to be mainly a copyright violation. The only parts of the original version of the article that do not seem to be from this article: [5] are the bit that says she "did some modeling shoots none topless" and the sentence that "He as grown hugely in he job as TV3 from a frumby dressing presenter to a stylish dressed and with the mix of weight loss has attraced a fan base of boys, men and pensioners". We will need to remove the copied material. I've created an introductory paragraph that should provide the basis of a stub. I'm not sure if we need to delete, as the violating material would still be in the page history otherwise. Silverfish (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a solvable content issue and not grounds for deletion. --neon white talk 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the material, and restored my keep. I think copyright violations are more serious than other content issues as they potentially lead to legal issues. However, in this case it was straightforward to deal with this. Silverfish (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still a solvable content issue and not grounds for deletion. --neon white talk 14:47, 29 June 2008 (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.