Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Reilly


 * 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 of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer  T - 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielle Reilly
a vanity site, imo, though hotly disputed on discussion page. I think page should be put out of its misery


 * NOTE: I considerably reformatted and cleaned up this article (but did not delete much material). I don't know why I bothered to do this but I did.  Anyway since people complained they couldn't figure out what the article was about, now they can. Herostratus 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomFRS 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I've read the article, and can't figure out who or what she's supposed to be. She may or may not be notable, but there's no way to tell if -- or even for what -- she's notable. Vote subject to change, depending on clarification of basic issues. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Okay, I started from first principles (reading the original stub) and working my way out from there, and it looks like badly written vanity, with a string of minor achievements that don't add up to much. Delete. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Geeze this looks like a fun one. From what I can tell, she has been involved to various degrees in some poltiical campaigns that didn't really do much, and is was involved in publicity for Sprint at some conference... uh... not really seeing the notability here, certainly nothing to warrant such a lengthy article.  Also, her site has an Alexa rank of 175,444.  Delete  --W.marsh 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete She gets 45,700 Google Hits see  but she doesn't quite cross the line of notability for mine yet despite the campaign to re-elect John Howard. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, who has nominated this deletion. I will change my vote to neutral given the lack of a nominator. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was nominated by FRS who cast the first vote. --W.marsh 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, 'twas me--FRS 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  . Capitalistroadster 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity; appears to be just some random staffer. Ambi 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article's 1,387-word length is way out of proportion to subject's notability, which is quite small despite mini-achievements in politics, self-promotion, and bikini modeling. betsythedevine 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per betsythedevine. And nom too, but betsythedevine said it better. ;) Ifnord 06:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment There is no reason a less-significant subject can't be full featured-article length. Length of article should be proportional to the amount of information contained in it, not to the notability of the subject. --Scott Davis Talk 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, length is a reason to cleanup, not delete, but I think people are just commenting because they're annoyed that they wasted their time reading 1,400 words of pure fluff before voting. --W.marsh 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That said, I vote delete on this article unless someone can clean it up to the standard where we can at least understand why Gabrielle Rielly might be notable. This rambling article gives Wikipedia a bad name in its current form. If the article is improved to describe claim to notability in the first paragraph, please disregard this vote. --Scott Davis Talk 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Agree with Betsythedevine - notability not established and this has vastly too much detail for a general encyclopaedia even if she were notable; for example, anyone who wants a list of the countries she has visited (i.e. virtually nobody) can visit her website. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7. "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Well, as others have noted, there's no assertion there to begin with! Seems like a perfect candidate. pfctdayelise 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading her website and bit of googling, it appears to me that her 15 minutes of fame was to promote Howard in a bikini during the last election. (Does anyone remember seeing this (WMV file) on the tv? It's subtle, huh?) Unsurprisingly the NT Libs lapped her up and apparently one of them nom'ed her for Young Aus of the Year, and wanted to make her an American tourism ambassador or something similar. If this article is to be kept, then this event seems to be the only really significant event. All the info about her website and modelling is definitely extraneous. pfctdayelise 13:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, non-notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- Ian &equiv; talk 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - that at least 4 of the editors to this article have edited it and basically nothing else - User:64.126.94.1, User:137.186.252.246, User:Bull Buster, User:Investigator -- Ian &equiv; talk 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete rubbish!, vanity! non-notable! horrible, even! Agnte 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, vanity, psycho legal-type supported. --InShaneee 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity page. Dottore So 11:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only because I did so much work on cleaning it up. Also, I'd hit it. Herostratus 02:12, 12 November 2005 (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.