Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Benton


 * 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. Meeting WP:N is a far more compelling argument than personal digs at the subject. Which are uncalled for. Wily D 08:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Wily D  08:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Benton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

"Philanthopist" of questionable notability. Google news search on "Lauren Benton" shows zero results. Standard search on the same reveals too many others with the same name - a search on "Lauren Benton" "B.O.D.Y Charity" shows 34 results, only 15 unique - nearly all from LinkedIn. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The so-called "Links" section includes dedicated, published coverage from The Mirror and the Derby Telegraph. Assuming that the "multiple" of "multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently published reliable sources" means 2, this subject clears the GNG bar from the get-go. Some like to see three instances of coverage: A CORPORATE SITE on the charity's fashion show might not get them there, but one has to think there is media coverage of such an event out there if one looks for it. For me, I'm satisfied. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per, . Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete blatent self promotion and made up stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's rather invalid to request deletion per the nomination, which is based upon page hits rather than the availability of reliable sources about this person. Also, did you not see the sources I included in my !vote above? Northamerica1000(talk) 00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not well known at all, no one has heard of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GursherDard (talk • contribs)
 * — GursherDard (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete (one person, one vote please Phil Bridger (talk)) links section mentioned above does not exist in article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GursherDard (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is now called "references". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per, . keep no opinions NeilSanderson1(talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — NeilSanderson1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.