Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Lauren Fisher


 * 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   no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Lauren Fisher

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fluffy peacocky autobiography with no sources provided. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - Article written like a promotional piece --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson
 * Keep. It may need a ton of work to clean up the peacock-ness, but she still seems pretty notable. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep. Awards need to be sourced to show meeting WP:ANYBIO.  The rest of article needs major cleanup to address unsourced peacock.  Either such gets cleaned and sourced, or it should be removed per WP:BLP. I found 6 articles that might be used to source some of the content, but as for the rest... yikes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; no viable reason for deletion put forward. Fluff, peacock, COI and sources requirements are all reasons to improve an article, not to delete it.  AfD is not a forum for article improvement. TJRC (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Seems notable" is not a standard to apply; and "sources requirements" are an inherent part of this encyclopaedia. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources: certainly not in the article and arguably not in the sources presented by User:MichaelQSchmidt either. We can't allow totally unsourced BLPs to just sail through AfDs in the hope that one day someone will be bothered to do the sourcing. Here there are insufficient sources out there to suggest that this article can ever be improved to verify the subject's notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the awards are sourced, she can be shown to meet WP:ANYBIO and the fluff can be removed then from the article with regular editing. My keep was "provisional", after all.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as the awards are "notable", as WP:ANYBIO requires. I have no views on that right now. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.