Talk:Alex Scott/VfD

Alexandra Scott was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

non-encyclopedic, non-notable, possibly vanity. Article states person made the news, so have I, is that a reason to include them? They certainly didnt make the news here. was unaware of the Oprah connection, means about 14million women have heard of her, makes it a keep Alkivar 04:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * appears i'm the only one who considers this non-notable, I surrender to the small consensus. Alkivar 01:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Possible vanity, but does have some google news hits, and was apparently in Time magazine at some point. Close, but keep. Cool Hand Luke  05:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, like Luke says, it's probably just notable enough to pass that test. Shane King 06:16, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree: Keep. In fact, I rewrote the article and removed the stub footer. Dusik
 * Keep, this seems quite encyclopedic even as is. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  10:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm reluctant to write up every paediatric cancer patient that makes the news. Not every neuroblastoma patient has a lemonade stand and appears on Oprah though. JFW | T@lk  03:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.  &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  00:47, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough for Oprah, notable enough for Wikipedia.  --JamesTeterenko 19:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)