Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Kolodny


 * 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. Also note that "it was created by a banned user" isn't a valid argument if multiple other legitimate users have significantly contributed to the page. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 02:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Debra Kolodny

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails BIO, made by a banned sock, lack of reliable citations Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to pass BIO (coverage by several RS's) and has several apparently reliable citations. Can those in favor of deletion identify which sources are not considered reliable?  (Yes, there are one or two or non-independent, but an adequate number seem good.) Matchups 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The citations look quite excellent to me, if there's something I'm missing here please let me know. Yitz (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs work (especially on organization and tone) but several of the citations are good and demonstrate notability. Jmbranum (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2021 (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.