Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Fairburn


 * 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. Per WP:HEY by and  (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Fairburn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It cannot determined what is she notable for, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added references to Rachel Fairburn from The Guardian newspaper, Time Magazine, The UK telegraph, The Guardian Newspaper and Esquire magazine. RuthVancouver (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the additional references show that she passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the references are sufficient. I typically take a dim view of listicle entries as sources, but the three different best-podcast listings do amount to good coverage, as does the Telegraph article. Cheers, gnu 57 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY after good work by and . Bearian (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2019 (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.