Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Gissendaner


 * 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   snow keep. BencherliteTalk 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Gissendaner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet Notability_(people), being the only one in a single US state is a statistic, not a milestone Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She has garnered much media attention well beyond Georgia over the years. She is the first woman executed in Georgia in 70 years.  Twice this year, her execution was cancelled due to a storm and cloudy drugs.  This is hardly a case of one event.  She has been recognized by many notable figures such as the pope.  Longevitydude (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This discussion should be closed ASAP because deletion will not happen. She is clearly notable. Any search would reveal such. --JumpLike23 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable per WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She is the first woman that Georgia executed, that too not for actual murder (but for planning a murder). Very notable case.
 * Keep per above. Subject has received significant coverage -- even the Vatican has weighed in on this. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   10:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note-Opposition to the death penalty is standard Vatican policy and does not coincide with or confer special notability to anyone because the Vatican weighs in.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. It wasn't meant so much meant as an argument as it was an aside. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   15:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the usual WP:GNG significant, widespread, sustained attention in national media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the case has even been internationally drawn attention. Adomnan (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. Case meets WP:GNG and has attracted international coverage, including some coverage in the UK. This is Paul (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (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.