Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June Martino


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

June Martino

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: Pretty obvious vanity page; fails WP:NOTABILITY. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. Unless she appears in published histories of the company or other WP:RS, she should not have a page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The very first of the 137 Google Books hits helpfully linked above is this published history of the company. I'm rather surprised that those commenting above didn't notice this when researching this subject. Limiting the search a little to exclude false positives finds loads of reliable sources confirming that Martino was an important part of the development of one of the world's best-known brands. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That Martino has only 137 direct ghits is a rather poor argument against deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said Google Books hits, i.e, actual printed books that write about her, not web pages. And the number doesn't matter - have a look at what they say and see if she's notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per PB. JBsupreme (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Currently the page fails WP:RS to establish WP:N, although WP:V can be strengthened if someone can find sources. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to create a full article. The person may not be the most important out there, but seems notable enough and to have received sufficient coverage to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Phil. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (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.