Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Gleave (2nd nomination)


 * 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. withdrawn per Graeme Bartlett (my thanks to you) NW ( Talk ) 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Gleave
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced, partially negative biography of a living person. Currently fails WP:BLP and WP:V, and could be deleted per db-g10 Please close out this nomination if someone add reliable sources to the page. NW ( Talk ) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sourced by close, otherwise neutral.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Francis (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Lisa Gleave is a very accomplished, well-known and sought after model. She holds a celebrity status in the industry. She is far more important and well known than many other models that have Wikipedia pages. I see nothing "partially negative" in this article. Deleting her Wikipedia profile makes no sense what-so-ever.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for substantially the same reasons as set out in its first AfD. I don't see the basis for the claim of partial negativity; but perhaps that has already been addressed since this AfD was opened.  If no sources are forthcoming, it should be stubbed.  But that's an issue of content, not of notability. TJRC (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am finding sources now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2010 (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.