Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Birkitt

Add links
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. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Birkitt[edit]

Stephanie Birkitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is notable only for supposedly having an affair with David Letterman, and so fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — First of all, as per nom WP:BLP1E textbook example (yes, I'm implying she failed WP:N before the 1E). Secondly, all third-party sources are from the last 4 days (i.e., since the BLP1E). While she has had a long-lived article, it didn't establish notability before this event. She was a page for a few TV shows, then an office worker, then a once-in-a-while on air personality (on one show; she, for the most part, justs "hands out prizes"). As I've had this debate on the talk page, I'll preempt this here (these are my previous comments verbatim):
To the argument "she's notable for appearances on a top-rated show"
Check out her IMDB page. Does that look significant? Do you have any idea how many other people on IMDB have more credits and would clearly never be considered notable? (Don't pull WP:OTHERCRAP here, my logic is valid). An analogical example of someone who is notable for their appearances on such shows is John Melendez (his IMDB). There are staffers who appear on these shows repeatedly. Conan's The Interrupter (his IMDB). Check out those IMDB links and come back and say she's significant for "appearing regularly."
Nonetheless, as I commented on the talk, this BLP1E example should be merged with the other BLP1E spun off from the same event (Joe Halderman) and the huge bubble growing on Letterman's page about this event should be spun off into an article on the event, its history, its players, the lawsuit (as it develops), and its ramifications (as they develop). This should be done in a very judicious way to avoid contradicting WP:NOTNEWS.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS 7/11 refs in the last few days. 2/11 interviews (primary sources). 1/11 CBS page (primary source). 1/11 blog.


  • Strong Keep -- She appeared on Late Show more than 100 times. [Late Show Fan Page], including covering two Olympics games. More than 100 times. Anyone basing their opinion solely on the IMDB website is not doing enough research. The statement on IMDB that she appeared 11 times is clearly inaccurate, e.g., it omits her Olympic work. Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this (and the Halderman article) into an article about the event. What P and P said just previously. Seduisant (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She appeared on Late Show more than 100 times. Why would that go in the Halderman article? Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Careful Cowboy noted below, Birkitt actually appeared in comedic roles on the Late Show 265 times. Meanwhile, Halderman's 30 years at CBS TV news has resulted in 7 Emmy Awards and a Columbia-Dupont Award, his solo written-directed-produced Showtime film was nominated for a journalism Emmy, and ... somehow ... commedienne Birkitt's bio is supposed to be merged into Halderman's journalism bio and then both bios are supposed to be merged into an article about David Letterman's sex sacndal? Nuh-uh. That won't do. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Is the argument that this somehow destroys her notability? A "scarlet A" argument? Hmmm .. Sounds sexist, better make that a strong keep.) She was sufficiently notable to have an article before affair got recent explosion of coverage. Publicly known as Letterman's assistant who appeared in several episodes of the show on camera. Deletion will give the appearance the Wikipedia is doing someone a favor—which is not an allegation, simply a suggestion of what that deletion would look like. The article has been here for 5 years—now she's in the middle of a scandal, delete her? Nope. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the very lucid arguments of Careful Cowboy, above. Johntex\talk 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has existed on this person for over 5 1/2 years. Sleeping with Dave is punishment enough, it shouldn't subject her to deletion too! --Milowent (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 100 appearances on that show is still not enough to establish notability. If she's notable for something other than the 1E, let's see some reliable third-party sources establishing that (nothing published within the last 5 days). Maybe some news stories for her involvement in something else significant. Really, anything (other than her bios from her employer's website). The "Late Show Fan Page" does not establish notability! Unless that is done, all of these "keeps" saying she is "oh-so-notable" really mean nothing.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS It's more than slightly absurd to posit that this has anything to do with sexism. Come on....
Comment--She has appeared on Late Show 265 times; I just counted. If that is not enough to make her notable, how many would you need? Careful Cowboy (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re "sexist" Hmmm ... Before the recent scandal she was a woman competent enough to have served a long term as Letterman's assistant ... acknowledged and featured on national television numerous times ... BUT NOW (poof!) she is just someone Letterman had an affair with and therefore unworthy of notability? Proofreader77 (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re "sexist" She has an article for 5 years, has the same notability as other on air characters with articles, nothing gets said about them, arguments to delete her article crop up *immediately* and *only* after her affair and you wonder why people are saying that's sexist? 131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re "sexist" Just add my "Hmmm" to the others. She had 265 appearances on a top-rated national television show. Improving her bio with more refs would seem to be the order of the day ... but instead we see a call to delete her bio because she is only notable for her having had sex with her employer. Hmmm. Maybe this Afd is not a case of sexism -- maybe it's a case of astroturfing on behalf of the David Letterman bio. Hmmm. I dunno. I just say "Hmmm." cat Catherineyronwode (talk)
  • Keep She appeared on the show many times and basically became an on-air character like Tony Mendez (Host) or Biff Henderson. And it should be noted that the article was edited a bunch of times by several editors long before the scandal broke. --JamesAM (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more notable than many media "celebrities" who get articles here. None of the deletion arguments seem to come from people who've read the history of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She may be just a footnote in History but I think "digital space" allows the storage of such notes. Just imagine if we had more (detailed) information about the Roman courts and courtesans, etc... rolling this person's "bio" into another article just wouldn't work as well. Madzimambo (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable before the scandal, notable now. I don't know why the people trying to delete the article decided that she was hardly ever on the show -- if you don't think that appearing on the show a lot is enough to establish notability, that's your opinion, but the portrayal of her work by User:Peace and Passion is completely inaccurate and I don't know how that user came up with that characterization or decided to act on it as if it were true. Propaniac (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly not BLP1E. It's pretty obvious that those calling for deletion A) Don't watch the show and/or B) Haven't familiarized themselves with the subject long enough to know that she was an on-air character similar to Tony Mendez and Biff Henderson before this event. Snap judgments are being made that this is a tabloid type article without sufficiently researching the subject. 131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E certainly does not say that we should punish someone who is in the news by deleting their article if it has existed for years, and if it had plenty of independent and reliable references with significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO before the news item surfaced, as she did. Checking Google News archive for 1996 through 2008: There were several items which described her appearances in Q&A columns. There was a story about her from Entertainment Weekly in 2002: [1]. In 2002, she was number 21 on USA Todays list "Pop Candy's 100 People of the Year!" Edison (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep and trout the nominator for not doing their homework. If the woman had a page, with notability firmly established, for five years now, then clearly BLP1E is out the window for an event that's just happened in the last couple of weeks. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait a moment, people. The article as it existed before the incident[2] clearly warranted deletion on the grounds of general lack of notability. I favor deletion on that basis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....Based on what exactly? Her notability has been clearly pointed out in the discussion above. Is appearing 265 times not enough? How may times is enough? Where did you get that number? Did you read the above discussion at all? What exactly do you disagree with? 131.247.83.135 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on her not being notable. The fact that she has appeared in walk-ons in skits does not make her notable or eligible for an article in Wikipedia. I'm really surprised that this marginal person, whose only notability relates to her rather embarrassing role in the Letterman sex saga, is the subject of such impassioned "keep" votes. I agree with the nominator that BLP1E was designed for this type of situation. The fact that this non-notable person had a bio since 2004 is not surprising. I'd bet that there are hundreds if not thousands of eminently deletable articles created then or earlier. CBS had the decency and good taste to take down her bio from the web, and we should too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per Edison's links above (which really ought to be added to the article, BTW). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just about. Sources such as [3] and [4] indicate she was reported on before the recent controversy despite being a minor "character" on the show. Guest9999 (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability. Dincher (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per Edison's links above, notable as an on-air character like Tony Mendez (Host) or Biff Henderson, notable per the 265 Late Show appearances cited by Careful Cowboy, and there is simply no good reason to delete the BLP of an on-air television personality whose bio has been in Wikipedia for 5 1/2 years with no previous AfD. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per the very lucid arguments of Careful Cowboy and comments of Edison. Surely met notability before the recent scandal. Goosman99 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep IMHO, the question is whether Birkitt gets mentioned only in List of David Letterman sketches (following the example for Meg Parsont, who is only mentioned in Late Night with David Letterman), or warrants her own article, like Rupert Jee. I think the Birkitt is a weak keep because the Jee article is a weak keep too. Both Jee and Birkitt used to have cast member bios on the CBS website for The Late Show, and I think that's enough to establish their notability. Citing the longevity of the article is bogus, since it predates the Wikipedia biography controversy and the Wikipedia Watch controversy that prompted the establishment of what became the WP:BLP policy. The real issue with the Birkitt article is not whether it should exist, but what should be said about her role in the definitely notable extortion/business ethics case that Birkitt appears to be an unwilling participant in. It's easy to find all sorts of third-party references to her role in the case, but tabloid coverage and coverage by organizations like TMZ.com should not be cited, because Birkitt is only known for her role on The Late Show. It's entirely possible that the details of the extortion case will never become public record, preventing any rumored detail about her role in the case (willing or unwilling) to never really be known. Birkitt's article and her name in any Letterman articles should be monitored carefully for the policy that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 72.244.207.41 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank god for users who will take a step back for a second like JohnnyB256. I still have not seen a cogent reason for "Keep." I did see a good delete vote which was labeled a keep though:
Keep - She may be just a footnote in History but I think "digital space" allows the storage of such notes. Just imagine if we had more (detailed) information about the Roman courts and courtesans, etc... rolling this person's "bio" into another article just wouldn't work as well. User:Madzimambo
If this was raised for deletion a month before this BLP1E, it would have been deleted. If this is raised for deletion a couple months after this BLP1E, it will probably be deleted. I honestly cannot understand the snowball consensus taking place here. Take a step back for a second. When statements as absurd as as this is a "delete based on sexism" are, it becomes clear that this is way more absurd heat than objective voting. Wow.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Comment It is not your right to refactor another editor's keep by calling it "a good delete." Also, re: your "statements [that] this is a 'delete based in sexism' [which is] getting brought up by so many editors": That is untrue. Look again; those were three comments (as of this writing) and nothing more, and they were made in response to one mention (by Proofreader), not "so many" -- and they were not even all in agreement with Proofreader's premise of sexism, either (i know that mine was not). Now, leaving aside your misdirections, at present the tally is 17 for keep, 2 for delete, and 1 for merge. Calling this consensus "absurd" is simply insulting to your fellow writers and editors. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ummm... that's not "refactoring." I was just implying (or rather, blatantly stating, if it wasn't clear) that such an argument seems more like logical support for a delete than a keep. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepat least for now. Revisit the issue in a year. If this article has been up for 5+ years it will look very fishy to the public to pull it now. Not to mention a disservice to people looking for it.Filmteknik (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see how this page is remotely encyclopedic. - Prezboy1 talk 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you please say more about what you mean by "encylopedic?" As this is a question of whether this article should appear in an encyclopedia, saying that it is not encyclopedic is not very illuminating. Do you think that 265 appearances on national television is too low to make this person notable? If so, how many appearances do you think would be needed for notability? Careful Cowboy (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really don't think much more needs to be said. It seems pretty clear in context. Imagine if there was an actress who only ever acted on one show. She was a frequently recurring guest star. Would she be notable for an encyclopedia? Take a look through IMDB if you want to find actresses who've done much more work but would never end up in an encyclopedia. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likely notable before the affair, definitely notable now. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was borderline in notability before the revelation of the scandal, simply as an occasional performer on the program. Now, she's the subject of intense media interest. As is mentioned above, this article does a good service by at least putting the scandal in perspective and providing background on the lady's career. Xoloz (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the argument to delete this article is now irrelevant. Stephanie Birkitt has received intense news coverage due to her involvement in the Letterman scandal. I say she was notable before that, certainly to any fan of the Letterman show. But as I said, she is certainly relevant now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page was created already as early as February 18, 2004, and had seen 70 edits before the current surge of prurient interest (permalink to 70th revision), so I think it is just not true that she is notable only for one event.  --Lambiam 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excuse me, since when has the existence of an article been evidence that the subject of the article is notable? All that generally means is that it can't be deleted via a proposed deletion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response- Lambiam's meaning is that BLP1E is soundly refuted. Anybody who using it as an argument in this AFD (IE- the nominator), obviously didn't bother to actually look at the article to see that it was around BEFORE the event. That has nothing to do with pre-event notability (which is firmly established). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - In the first vote (a delete) I noted this fact. After a few other editors brought it up, I went back and underlined it in my vote. I "obviously didn't bother" to look? Even though I specifically mentioned it? When I vote on something, I don't just do it willy-nilly. In no way is BLP1E refuted; as I said, the article did not establish encyclopedic notability before the fact. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second the response. The deletion-proposer's statement is absurd even if he's right that the article should be deleted. Obviously we all knew of Stephanie Birkitt's existence years before the recent allegations, and most of us (myself included) knew of Birkitt's existence long before we knew there was a Wikipedia article about her. She's been a (very minor) celebrity for years. If the article should be deleted, it's because of the "very minor" nature of that status, not because of the deletion-proposer's erroneous belief that we didn't know who she is until these allegations broke. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Stating BLP1E in no way implies the claim that "we didn't know who she is until these allegations broke." Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Correct me if I'm wrong but the only argument for deletion here is BLP1E, right? While it is arguable whether or not she was notable enough to warrant her own page prior to the scandal she obviously had at least some notability pre-scandal. So, while separately (pre-scandal or based only on the scandal) she may not warrant a page, I don't see why arguments for deletion are being made which don't consider the whole picture. -Ektar (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An aside - Complements of WP:Notability
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    • See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
Which of these is the one all the "keep" votes are claiming she passes? If there's something else from another policy, don't just vaguely allude to it; directly quote it, please.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--265 national television appearances is relevant to criterion 1. If you think 265 is too low, please propose a cut-off number. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First thing, you realize that those criteria are FOR notability, not against notability. In other words, you definitely are notable if you fit that criteria, but not meeting those criteria doesn't, in itself, make you non-notable. Besides, that's exactly what I was talking about, that is an argument which ignores the fact that the she was involved in the scandal in ADDITION to her being on TV. -Ektar (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article should stay because Birkitt had an affair with Letterman and because she appeared frequently on Letterman's show. However, had she never had sex with him, she would not be notable. Her appearance on the show, combined with her affair, justify an article for her. How does having sex make a person notable? It occurs when that person has sex with a prominent public figure under ethically questionable circumstances. Monica Lewinsky is an excellent example of this. Note that Lewinsky has an article on Wikipedia. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Monica Lewinsky situation was huge. This "sex with a public figure" will blow over pretty quick. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we're prognosticators now? You've made some cogent arguments for deletion. This last one is not one of them. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close This page was around for years. There's no cause for immediate deletion, such as libel or other concerns of harm to the subject or others (which, once upon a time, used to be the basis of "BLP"). Why attempt to delete it exactly at this point? You know everyone's watching it, isn't the result predictable? Sorry for voting mostly in English, it's been a while I've largely forgotten how to speak Wikipedian. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepIf this article is deleted because of lack of notability, then I can find at least 300,000 more articles on the English wikipedia that need to be deleted. For instance, years ago I created an article on Tarmo Oja; he is only notable because he has a very small asteroid named after him. The article is still there as it should be. People come to Wikipedia because it offers information that can't be found in other enyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.16.238 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no other repository on the internet of this much information about the subject and it is therefor a prime source on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.91.42 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This young lady qualified under the bio rules long before the sex scandal hit. An attempt to remove it now is an attempt to cover up an ugly situation for Letterman. Wikipedia is not censored. Keep.--InaMaka (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over 200 appearances on programme broadcast all over the world. Is this a joke? -Duribald (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Close, already! This is getting embarrassing to Wikipedia. Latest tally -- 30 for keep, 3 for delete, 1 for merge. Does the word "snowball" mean anything here? cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. Deletion discussions are not a vote, particularly when BLPs are involved, and particularly in situations in which large numbers of unregistered users suddenly descend on an AfD.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
You know, it's true that someone like me rarely participates in deletion discussions. I think I said as much in my vote, or whatever, above. But this vote, or whatever, is advertised on the page itself, and somebody decided to put it up for deletion when it's getting the most traffic. It is to be expected. I don't think it's a bad thing. Despite my failure to vote with a pseudonym, I do know what an encyclopedia is. I also do apreciate the general idea that often gossip coverage is harmful, and we can do without here. But I don't really see that we're anywhere near that line in this case. It's pretty terse, low key and matter of fact what we're asserting here (at least on the current version, I agree with the one below who says it should be kept, but cautions it should be monitored). I'm not sure how publicity averse she is, but if she has a list of things on the internet she wishes would go away, I strongly doubt we're even on it. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was a notable personality before the scandal, and her article already has been here a while. The notability bar is set quite low on Wikipedia, and she cleared it easily. However, it is significant that the article has the potential to be hurtful to a living person. The article should stay and be monitored closely, perhaps even locked for a period of time. Group29 (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your raising that point. If we're to have this article, I hope that BLP will be strictly enforced. We need to pay attention to things like exact birth dates, which BLP discourages for invasion of privacy and identity theft reasons.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on birth date issue raised by JohnnyB256: I have never before seen a comment, essay, or administrative directive to the effect that BLP policy "discourages" birth dates. I have sourced hers from Time Magazine and consider that sufficiently reliable and public to retain in the article. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." I'm removing the DOB and please don't reinstate it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JohnnyB256: Please take the above discussion to the article's discussion page. It is highly off-topic here. I have opened a discussion section for the topic here. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me, but I dont think saying 'a lot of unregistered users suddenly...' supports any opinion, while it sounds strongly like WP:ABF. Also, I personally think that a consensus seems already formed. Anyway, I'm on a semi-wikibreak now, w/o enough time to do my own research on this so I remain neutral, but I for one suggest the discussion should be kept on topic. Blodance (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Birkitt&oldid=1224852220"