Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey D'Erasmo

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 consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey D'Erasmo[edit]

Notability asserted, but not shown. Delete unless shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that her notability is shown on the site that is linked to in the article itself. I have added a little bit more detail to it (which the linked to article did show, but the wiki article didn't say as you pointe out) and have referenced it. I personaly would say she is notable. SGGH 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her book being commended by the New York Times ought to be adequate evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the article is not up to standards for a reference (book?) such as Wikipedia even if the subject is, needs work to avoid a second nomination within a month Alf photoman 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'keep the award is notable., but agreed, the article is only a stub, and needs to be completed with other book reviews, links or at least names for specific stories, etc. Then it should be able to stand. SGGH, take note. DGG 00:41, 1 February 2007 (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.