Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Evans


 * 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) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Evans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:N, Just being on TV is not inherently notable. Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I don't feel like this is enough, though it does make me wonder if someday she might warrant a page. I don't think you could call her a regular, I don't see any reference to multiple appearances on a show or being on a panel for most debates, etc. Also the claim that CNBC is the biggest business news channel seems a bit POV to me. Bloomberg isn't small, CNN has plenty of buisiness coverage as does Fox News. it's one of the lower rung news networks and she doesn't even appear to be on every week or even month. I still fall back on, in this day and age being on TV is not inherently notable.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Article has been expanded since being nominated. A regular on the biggest business news channel is worth including. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement in the article that she was "a regular guest on various television news programs before joining CNBC" is cited. That was even before she joined CNBC where she is a regular on the largest business news channel in the U.S. Nothing POV about it. Thems the facts. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That statement does nothing to prove notability, also YOUR claim that CNBC is the largest business news channel in the US is not supported by any sources I can find, in fact CNN and Fox Business news come up on the first 5 pages when you google that claim word for word.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable and yes, I am serious per photographic evidence to that effect! --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gossip _ 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, NYT and Business Insider are in my opinion sufficient to give the atricle a chance, though higher expansion with further references is highly desirable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic is meeting WP:GNG, per:
 * The New York Times – Wall Street Journal Co-Anchor to Move to CNBC
 * Business Insider – Here's Everything We Know About Kelly Evans, CNBC's Brand New Star Reporter
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the coverage in reliable sources makes the subject of the article pass WP:GNG. →  B  music  ian  00:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it does pass WP:GNG and as expanded since nominated, it is much better now also has coverage in WP:RS.  →TSU tp* 08:20, 28 May 2012 (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.