Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Fitz-Gibbon


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non admin close).  D u s t i talk to me 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernice Fitz-Gibbon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotional fluff Ninthlocal1985 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't look like it to me. It seems to be written in a fairly neutral tone, with multiple reliable sources asserting her notability. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Agree with TenPoundHammer, although the article needs more refs.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Notable. archanamiya  ·  talk  23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could use more sourcing and a copy edit, but notability is sufficiently demonstrated by references at hand. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article asserts verifiable notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Promotional fluff... for someone who died in 1982? Is she spamming Wikipedia from beyond the grave? Ridiculous. --Canley (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article clearly could use some filling out, but the subject is also clearly notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject is clearly notable with reliable sources to back it up -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (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.