Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Reed


 * 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   redirect to IVF. one event - redirect to IVF#History where she is already mentioned (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Candice Reed

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The question here is whether her journalism career meets notability standards, or if it is merely her birth that is notable. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Merge to IVF, as has been suggested at the article. A bit more than BLP1E with some news coverage as an advocate for people conceived by IVF.   Sharktopus  talk  00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion was unintentionally removed from the log here. A relist is probably appropriate to ensure that the discussion receives adequate visibility from the community. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to IVF, which already mentions her. The subject's journalism career is unremarkable and there is no reason to have an article to say what can be said in two sentences in the IVF article. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete . Strikes me as a typical 1E event--funny that that one event would be her birth. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to redirect, per Jenks24 below--it is a likely search term. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Read the news links in the article. Decades later she is getting coverage for her work, even outside her own country.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Now go and tell me it's because of her work, not because of the ubiquitous "where are they now" interest. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to IVF. Classic 1E case, only coverage has been because she was conceived by IVF and her journalism career is pretty unremarkable (the papers that she's worked for aren't even bluelinks). That said, her name is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (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.