Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonny Hicks


 * 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. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks

 * — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Fighting for Justice with reason: "the bonny hicks article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I did a Google search for her, and a few reputable articles turned up, but nothing really significant. This is a tricky one.  I say that if someone can expand the article and provide references that satisfy WP:BIO, then I guess Keep, but if not, I say go ahead and delete it.  --Sbrools ( talk  .  contribs ) 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO and does not assert notability, which is speediable. Unless the article can be expanded, as above, I would go for a delete. wtfunkymonkey 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. She absolutely is notable in Singapore and a CNN article mentions her prominently in an article about the jet that crashed, killing her. 45,000 books sold, as the article mentions, is a good number in Singapore. She has also has had numerous community centers and social organizations named after her in Singapore.  The article needs cleanup and to be de-stubbed to better establish her notability, that's all. CyberAnth 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete in my view does not meet WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree to Keep as per request from CyberAnth (posted on my talk page) and now that adjustments made. -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now ... authors that are more than self-published are inherently notable. BigDT 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per CyberAnth and . Kimchi.sg 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, without question - I just spent a few hours expanding the article. She is even more notable than I had initially thought. Check out the article now. CyberAnth 08:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly is independently notable even she didn't meet the section of WP:BIO about enduring contributions. Fabulous job, CyberAnth.--Kchase T 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Had the article look like this I would never have nominated for deletion. Fighting for Justice 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you had not NfD'ed it it would not look like this. :-) But I think this is a lesson that we should all be slow to delete and quick to research...in a fair amount of depth. CyberAnth 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So can we consider this nomination withdrawn? :-) Kimchi.sg 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, she is notable enough and after the expansion it is definitely better. She was a well known author in the past as well as a model. Ter e nce Ong 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep looks notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty notable. ← A NAS  Talk? 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, keep it. The article looks lovely now. :-) Fighting for Justice 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above. Tonytypoon 00:44, 28 December 2006 (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.