Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Holder (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tamara Holder
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Current version is substantially similar to the previous (deleted) version. Subject has not become more notable since last deletion. Username suggests that it is autobiographical.  Graymornings (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like no-one is interested in this one. Lots of coverage, but nothing in-depth except 1 or 2 local pieces. Would be happy to reconsider if someone finds something relevant, but I know I looked hard enough. Bigger digger (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question I don't understand. The result of the previous AfD discussion, in January 2009, was "delete and salt". If it was salted, how could it be recreated 5 months later? BTW I see that I was the one who removed the prod this past July and supplied a couple of references, including one from the Chicago Tribune. But I don't feel strongly about keep vs. delete; her notability is marginal at best. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep - I understand that it was supposed to be salted and deleted prior to this, but the links provided do no seem to be too local and the person's notability seems to be on a border. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The previous deletion was for spamming. The current article does not reflect that problem, and as a press figure, she has attracted some criticism. Ray  Talk 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Which reference indicates notability? I think this is an attorney with TV appearances. Maybe viable for an article later, but appearances on TV are not references that prove notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Non-notable, obvious SEO attempt.  EnabledDanger (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While provided a better reference on her in the Huff Post link, the Fox News ref failed to verify. Look at her Huff Post bio, then decide. Still, my two bits -- delete.--S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. While it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that this person might be notable, I don't see any proof in terms of WP:RS here, or significant secondary coverage. — Chromancer  talk/cont 19:09, 12 September 2010 (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.