Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarrah Le Marquand


 * 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. Secret account 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarrah Le Marquand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:CREATIVE. nothing notable about this journalist, one source in article is primary. coverage reveals articles written by her but nothing about her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish to request that this page on this columnist not be deleted. I went to it yesterday after seeing Sarrah on Channel Nine discussing immunisation for school age boys where she mentioned she was the mother of two sons and in the context of the discussion I wanted to check how old they were. This was information I found at this page.

I was upset to see it is being considered for deletion as the information on this page is quite useful to people like me who see her on television and want to check a few details of her personal life - all information that is contained on this page. Personally I first looked for her on Wiki after seeing her on a Channel 7 program a few months ago and was fascinated to read about her account of being stalked by a stranger - information which, again, was provided by a link on the Wiki page.

Just finally I would argue that the information on this Wiki entry would appear to be supported by reliable and independent sources, such as her professional entry at IMDB and The Punch. Only one of the links was an article personally written by her and that was about her stalker.

A quick Google search uncovered other bio sources that confirmed the information contained on her Wiki entry including:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/nine-stream-live/meet-the-team/host/sarrah-le-marquand

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/1483861227/Sarrah-Le-Marquand

I do hope you will reconsider deleting this page. Many thanks, MelfromSydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * the sources you refer to are all primary, see WP:PSTS. being upset about an article being deleted is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi LibStar, I realise that "being upset" about an article being deleted is not grounds for keeping. But that wasn't the argument I was seeking to make. My point was that this entry appears to offer some substantial and relevant information about the subject, all of which has been backed up by multiple sources. Having come to it via a Google search a week ago, where it provided the information I was looking for, I was surprised to see it listed as being considered for deletion. The sources listed are not all primary. At least half of them are secondary.

Unfortunately judging from your response to me I fear you have probably already made up your mind though. For what it is worth I can only reiterate my appeal on the basis that in my view this entry does indeed meet the necessary criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - definitely fails WP:CREATIVE audiodude (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to LibStar as above: This entry appears to offer some substantial and relevant information about the subject, all of which has been backed up by multiple sources. Having come to it via a Google search a week ago, where it provided the information I was looking for, I was surprised to see it listed as being considered for deletion. The sources listed are not all primary. At least half of them are secondary. For what it is worth I can only reiterate my appeal that this entry not be deleted on the basis that in my view it is worthwhile and does meet the necessary criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find reliable sources discussing this journalist. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 1 March 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.