Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayhill Fowler


 * 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. StarM 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayhill Fowler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, although the opening sentence says she is famous. Only known for passing on statements by Clinton and Obama, not even for her own writing. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: No demonstrated notability as a journalist. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Qqqqqq and nom. Fails WP:N also as her comments on Obama provoked a short burst of news topics, nothing more. Anti  venin  06:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They were not even her comments. She just reported his remarks.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Search engine test (56 thousand search results). Wording "famous" must be changed though. Mhym (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hit count alone is not a good reason to keep the page, as is mentioned on Search engine test. Anti  venin  07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it was Senator Obama's remarks that were (I am confident) the topic of the web postings, not the name of the person who repeated them. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--one shouldn't be notable simply for doing one's job, unless it's an inherently notable job (and this isn't). Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Sometimes an ordinary person becomes newsworthy because of a political controversy. This happened to Graeme Frost and Joe the Plumber, just this election cycle.  Mayhill Fowler is in the same boat.  Just read all these newspaper articles vilifying her.  Mhym (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What newspaper articles? I saw one mention in the Washington Post archive, and that was positive. Granted, the blogosphere is full of criticism, but who's going to remember that tomorrow, or next year? BTW, why didn't the author even bother to explain what those controversial remarks were? WP is supposed to be encyclopedic--not something for insiders only. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete No real information on the person in article that shows she is notable. Borock (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No real information on the person in article that shows she is notable. Borock (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2008 (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.