Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Wagstaff


 * 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 delete. Clear consensus that Fran Wagstaff fails to meet the notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fran Wagstaff

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have attempted to find reliable source coverage of the notability claims made in the article and have not turned up significant coverage. I have found some passing quotes in local papers, but have been unable to turn up significant coverage that focuses on her individually. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Take another look; I just did a complete rewrite to put the article into encyclopedic style. She gets seven pages of hits at Google News; unfortunately most of them are behind paywalls so I couldn't cite them. Most are not "about" her, but I think the awards make up for the relative lack of news coverage which is specifically about her. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about numbers of hits. It's about substantive, independent third party coverage. is the only reference that comes close. I'll be more than happy to reverse my vote if more coverage comes to light. In particular an official reference with citation for “Woman of the Year”, California State Legislature would be gold. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: MelanieN's argument is not persuasive. The pertinent guidelines explicitly state that a source quoting an individual can neither be used to support the individual's notability nor that of the organization which she might represent.  As such, rafts of Google News hits that merely quote the subject are worthless.  That being said, there is no criterion under which Ms. Wagstaff winning awards confers notability absent coverage in reliable sources of the same.  Ravenswing  10:43, 18 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) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not satisfying the general notability guideline. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:BIO excellent point made above about lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 19 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.