Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Woods


 * 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. 9 days is long enough. Keep. Notability has been established although this stub needs major expansion. (non-admin closure) - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Woods

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Poorly sourced BLP containing no information besides a list of publications. A google search throws up little more information and nothing resembling a WP:RS. HJMitchell   You rang?  18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: I'd actually heard of this person based upon some reference to her on some other article I am involved in and I researched her a little then to see if she had expert status for what was being claimed. When I saw this listing now I thought I'd be able to quickly find sources demonstrating notability for what she did do, but it's not really happened. She wrote one book by herself, which WorldCat lists as being in 85 libraries world-wide (not necessarily an accurate account), which might mean that the book meets the first step for not being ruled immediately nonnotable. She wa a coauthor on some kids books. Wrote a short story in a collection. Wrote for some magazines. Filmed some segments for places that would be notable. There's a video of her being interviewed about her book on TV on her YouTube page, but I don't know if that was local news or a one off. She does seem to be doing pretty well at promoting herself. Don't think she's notable enough for an article yet, but I can see her maybe getting there someday. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Strong keep Verifiable. Some evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated to strong keep per very substantial coverage in reliable sources. Definitely notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Solid Keep per diligent WP:AFTER and Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Morning Herald, Herald Sun, Brisbane Times, ABC News, WA Today, Discovery Space, Wildlife Extra, Why Files, Google Scholar and Google Books, and much more. There is easily enough to show notability through reviews and coverage in relliable sources. Just a matter of WP:CLEANUP... and AFD is not for cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourced now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 15 May 2009 (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.