Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Wilzig


 * 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Wilzig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with no reliable sources. GAtechnical (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in its current form is mediocre, but the person is notable. Here is just one of many articles in reliable sources that give her significant coverage,  from the Seattle Times   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An entire chapter of this book is devoted to Naomi Wilzig.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. What Cullen says. This woman has coverage all over the world, as evidenced by Google News. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (per Cullen) and, obviously, source. The World Erotic Art Museum Miami article also needs some work in that direction. squibix  (talk)  02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been completely rewritten and now includes six references.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets GNG. Insomesia (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently notable as recent additions to article show.--Staberinde (talk) 16:54, 25 February 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.