Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollyanna Woodward


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pollyanna Woodward

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete - non-notable - no valid references Dutyscenee (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Only a handful of tabloid lifestyle pieces of no significance. The Gadget Show is high-profile itself but her presence on the team has yet to generate independent impact. Knowing the nature of The Gadget Show I expect that this might be encouraged to change should this AfD be successful! Rubiscous (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a full page spread in a national daily newspaper here It didn't take long to find. She's a TV presenter so there will be more...Szzuk (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also here . I could go on. The nom appears inexperienced and didn't perform WP:Before. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I could call you inexperienced for thinking that her page on her PR company's website is a reliable independent source. The Daily Star and Express? Sister newspapers. Not independent of each other. What you've listed so far isn't enough so please DO go on if you have more. Rubiscous (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now now. How about you learn to use GOOGLE before deciding a TV presenter shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Daily Mail Sunday Mercury Gadget Awards FHM Magazine. Szzuk (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your tone is not helpful. causa sui (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These daily newspapers are owned by the same company as the television station which runs her television show. This is an incestuous PR-fest, not reliable sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The media is very incestuous, I can only agree. There was a big PR campaign but there are plenty of secondary sources. PR fests work because she's on TV. She also was Miss England. Szzuk (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice the claim that she was Miss England is completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is true but I'm not looking for any more refs. I vaguely remember the PR fest - it was "a geek and pretty too". Fairly unique as they go. Szzuk (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (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.