Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hannant


 * 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 keep following the rewrite (most delete arguments do not address it). No articles link to this one, which is usually cause for concern, particularly given the whiff of self-promotion, but given the subject's involvement with noteworthy organisations and people, there should be scope to add some links to this article somewhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Laura Hannant
Appears to fail WP:BIO, I don't think there is any notability on a scope like this. This was prod'd and the prod was removed with no explanation. Delete Yanksox (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, likely vanity. -Drdisque 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is some sort of a precocious young activist, plucked out of obscurity by UNICEF for reasons unknown. The article is a UE promotion, anyway, and I have a strong distrust of 17 year old activists. Maybe she'll be notable one day, who knows. Not now and not this article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nn and more likely than not, vanity  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is nn and vanity 'speedy'? Crum375 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep. See below. The article sounds like vanity, although there is some proof of notability. Its main problem right now is that it is extremely poorly written, with basically a bunch of quotes slapped together. If it were re-written from scratch as an encyclopedic article, a case could be made for inclusion, but that would require some serious work. Crum375 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds like she's a pawn of somebody's public relations campaign. Self-congratulatory PR does not make notability, even if it is UNICEF pulling the strings. Opabinia regalis 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Coredesat talk 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I have cleaned up the article to a far better standard. I thought it was a very interesting subject, and worth keeping. If those who have already voted are happy with the article as it now stands, please consider changing your vote. (Not that this really is a "vote" as such, but we all know that's how these things are usually interpreted!) David L Rattigan 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it has potential. Using a 'Strong Keep' to push a marginally notable person will not gain you any extra votes here. Quiet and reasoned persuasion works better. I think some of the previous references have dropped out and the ones there are not all functional or do not have her name. My recommendation is to work on adding as many good references as possible to neutral reliable sites, such as news media, UNICEF, etc. that show her name. I will switch my vote to Keep once the refs have been added/fixed up. Crum375 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I kept two important references, but made a formatting mistake. Corrected it now, and they are both sources that refer to her by name. David L Rattigan 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still not comfortable with sufficiently proven notability based on the current references to change my mind. Yes, she was mentioned a couple of times, but so have lots of kids, and it seems in most cases she is mentioned as example of an 'activist kid' in a site or publication of questionable (to me) popularity. Has she done anything remarkable since? She is about 20 years old now - I think it takes more to get notability per WP:BIO criteria. Crum375 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rewrite, but my opinion is the same. Had she received the prize, and not been merely nominated, I might have changed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it - what prize was she nominated for? Crum375 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The World's Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child per the radical rewrite - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * She nominated someone else to receive the Prize, but was not nominated herself (which I guess makes her even less notable in your book)! David L Rattigan 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep She seems marginally noteworthy. WilyD 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BIO because she addressed the dignitaries internationally in a covered event.
 * Comment for my keep. This could use some more verifiable sources and coverage of how she got to be the person chosen to make that address. Ste4k 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See this for example. It seems there are lots of 'jury kids' around, new ones being appointed all the time. Are they notable? Crum375 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Probable activist vanity article.  Barely notable.  KleenupKrew 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Article is much better since David L Rattigan's revision. Also Passes WP:BIO per Ste4k. This is stubby, but has potential for development. Also note that discussions on the Rights of the Child are still emerging. This article has long-term reference potential, I believe. Universitytruth 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep seems like she has a modicum of notability; very few Google hits, but a fair number of them do come from news articles about her rather than random pages. Skybum 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has been improved significantly. --Coredesat talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article much improved and asserts sufficient notability for me. Inner Earth 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added a new link to the article, and changed my vote above from Delete to Keep. I think the article as it is now is acceptable for both proven notability and style aspects. Crum375 13:42, 30 June 2006 (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.