Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Naylor


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Maureen Naylor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD, where the reason given was no secondary sources. there are, but PRODder requested bringing it to AFD if declined, so i have done so. I am myself not sure the refs provided are enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm basing this only on the sources in the article, because when I search the subject in Google News I can't seem to filter out articles written by her.  From the listed refs, I don't see enough coverage to establish notability: the News Fresno source seems unreliable (based on geocities) and the link provided is not to the article referenced; the two News Review Sacramento and Chico references are trivial mentions; there's no evidence that the Emmy SF is a notable award; the KFSN bio is not independent; and I can't get the Family Tree Legends link to work.


 * In general, though, does anyone know what the policy is on people who are covered only in local news outlets? --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p  04:38, 20 October 2013 (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.