Talk:Kierra

Deletion
This article was "Prodded" with the following concerns:

1) Not notable 2) Unreferenced

I unprodded the article because I thought the prod was too soon after the article was created and the article should have more chance to be corrected. Less than an hour after I did this, the article was deleted entirely, on the grounds that it was a blatant hoax.

I think that it was improper to delete the article in this manner. As I understood it, the G3 tag is for articles that are entirely hoax e.g. The carrot tree of Catterick. Not for an allegedly incorrect statement in an article. My ability to presume good faith at this moment, based on the evidence I have, only extends to presuming that there is a theoretical possiblity that the person responsible for applying the speedy delete tag could have a bone fida explanation that currently eludes me. I am relieved to find that having had the article history undeleted, it transpires that the prodder was not responsible. I have now located a source and therefore removed the second prod concern and any possibility that the article is a hoax. The manner in which this was handled has increased the inconvenience of correcting the matter many-fold.

Regarding the first concern, need and notable are both a grey scale. Do we need an encyclopedia? could be answered no (not by me perhaps). There is a procect -WikiProject Anthroponymy that should be defining a threshold of notability. I would prefer it if that project determines whether this article should stay or go. Until it does, I think regarding concern 1 this article should be given the benefit of the doubt. Op47 (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)