Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Kisthardt


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol Kisthardt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe this person has notability. Yes there are news reports about him - he is an investigator after all. But what is in this article is just information about him doing his job. Nothing indicates lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There have been no significant changes since the creation of the article in 2008, only bots and general cleanup. Many links are broken. None attest to notability. LaMona (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Actually, I believe that she is notable based solely on her position, purported accomplishments and curriculum vitae. Reflinks provided; dead ones pruned. Article is now a stub, of course, but can be expanded. Quis separabit?  13:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I added a couple of sources via HighBeam for an investigation she led in 2006. She looks to be a fairly high-profile investigator over time and in a number of sources, so I think WP:BASIC applies. I am One of Many (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - While the improvement effort is appreciated, this subject fails GNG for failure to have been covered significantly in multiple independent sources. What we have here are incidental mentions related to job role. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Quis Separabit's excellent pruning and as per s addition of sources, plus added some more. The WP:BASIC rule says we can If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and there are numerous sources, plus her position is important, so in my view she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tomwsulcer. James500 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2014 (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.