Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Martin


 * 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelli Martin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability unclear. WP:REALITY is against reality show contestants being seen as WP:N for that alone. Is her prior career sufficiently WP:N according to WP:CREATIVE? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was first speedied for WP:NN, still deleted after a hangon, then went through DRV Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_24 and was restored. I was a contributor to that process, arguing that it should be restored on the question of process, not content. If this article eventually fails, it will only be on a minor point of WP:NN and never needed that sort of heavy-handed treatment.

As to WP:N itself, I can only suggest that editors read Talk:Kelli Martin first, where there is discussion at some length.

I regret AfDing this article, as I'm really not certain myself as to which side of the line it falls. Please consider my opinion to be an abstention, but I believe it does need a wider airing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The owner of this article has three times now removed notability tags without really addressing the issue. Andy Dingley (talk)


 * Keep I created this article entirely from the six sources cited. As noted at the earlier DRV (resulting from two out-of-process speedy deletions and a salting by User:Orangemike; speedy deletion/protect overturned), the following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under WP:RS, and readily available for easy verification:
 * (1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article
 * (2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio
 * (3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio
 * As discussed on the article talk page WP:REALITY has not gained community support, and one's appearance on a reality show does not detract from one's notability. Nominator said on talk page "I think she's notable, on balance" and said that he would not be nominating for AfD (diff). Nominator added and re-added notability template despite my pointing out misinterpretation of WP:BIO. My position is that Martin is the subject of multiple, reliable sources independent of her and each other, and that these sources are adequate to write a short, verifiable article (See WP:GNG), as evidenced by the current version, which is a short, verifiable article, with all potentially controversial assertions attributed to appropriate third-party sources. I really feel like this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. In reference to the WP:OWN accusation by Andy, I hope that my eagerness to engage other editors in discussion is apparent from the article and various talk page histories. At least one of Andy's insertions of the template came after I pointed out Andy's good-faith misunderstanding of the standard he was applying (my comment, Andy's template add ). Also in reference to the WP:OWN accusation, I suggested that Andy ask for a 3rd Opinion if he felt the notability template really belonged. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not conferred by a handful of puff pieces in a local newspaper. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's borderline, but enough coverage to pass above the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - unless the pieces in a local newspaper are press releases or otherwise written by her representatives, whether or not they're favorable to her, they're coverage, and make her Notable. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (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.