Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Tetro

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 procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tetro[edit]

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

~~Non-Notable Person. Doesn't cover the guidelines.~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is flighty, gossipy, not much substance, but she keeps turning up in "the papers," usually with a photo -- a middling celebrity, undoubtedly far more well-known "down under" than "up top" (but doesn't that further the goal of beating back systemic bias?) -- she gets my vote to stay in the 'pedia. Article could be improved of course. DonFB (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve per DonFB: obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes WP:BASIC and plenty of WP:RS for her in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2017 (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.