Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Elizabeth


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Elizabeth

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

Poorly sourced, notability does not seem to be established. Text of the article is largely breezy fluff. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Fails WP:ARTIST. Also, article appears to be a joke (claiming that subject is an attention-seeking troll – and now we have page here). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck out my text above because it has been brought to my attention that the article contained a troll message which I fell for. I thought it very peculiar to use such negative language in a WP:BLP and was thinking about removing it, but quickly checking the article history and some of the given links made me wonder. Rechecking makes me think that WP:ARTIST might still be a problem, but I think I'd better retire from giving an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment article has been reverted to an earlier version which does not contain the trolling reference, and the edit notes allege vandalism. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason this article was nominated for deletion is because it was vandalized by IP address # 71.36.101.63. Prior to the vandalism, the article was approved by several administrators, with a few minor changes. It was posted for 4 weeks before it was altered by # 71.36.101.63, and during that time there were no complaints. All the above complaints were logged during the interval when the article was vandalized. Hhtttt (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - extraneous material removed from AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What do you mean by "when met with approval of the admins"?  Admins have no more say than any other editor as to whether or not an article meets notability standards, and where did these apocryphal admins give their approval?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just meant that the article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but that on the closer inspection of the admins it was decided that enough notability had been claimed. After that point the subject of deletion was not raised again, until the page was significantly defaced by IP address 71.36.101.63. Perhaps "approval" is not the correct term, sorry about that. Hhtttt (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be notable enough. I'd protect it, tough, against cyber-stalkers. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: this article needs a lot better sourcing to pass WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper  |  76  02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, feels notable - just - but could do with better sourcing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. That discography doesn't look notable to me. BTW, removing a speedy tag means notability MIGHT be there, not a pronouncement of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not consider the sources provided meet WP:RS. Cannot find RS from searching. Quantpole (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.225.100 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability; fails to provide reliable sources, relying instead on blogs and the like. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:13, 22 June 2009 (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.