Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Flynn


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Carly Flynn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources that are notable KiwiMan (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 11:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notabel journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Index NZ has at least ten siginificant articles on the subject in national media. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI.  Schwede 66  17:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: Nationally-known television presenter. I can see plenty of WP:RS hits in GNews for  "Carly Flynn" New Zealand . Wikishovel (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG AND WP:SIGCOV. Should have been speedy kept along with other bad-faith nominations by blocked user. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 10:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As above, seems a clear Keep and improve. The sources are there, but the article needs work - which is not a reason for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2017 (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.