Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary nissenson


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary nissenson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotional unsourced BLP full of dubious claims and promotional language. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. There are plenty of solid references out there, including a Time magazine article. Many deal with her job/awards as a reporter or her botched plastic surgery. (p. 2)  Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only cleanup possible is a complete re-write, that's why I voted delete rather than keep. Spam is spam even if it's about a notable topic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but as a stub. I agree that the current article is unacceptable. I think the Peabody Award plus the assorted publicity over various aspects of her career do satisfy GNG.  So I guess the right answer is to stub it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clarityfiend has shown plenty of sourcing is available. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as mentioned, sources are available. AlgebraT (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Peabody Award establishes notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 7 October 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.