Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Babcock


 * 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. marginally notability with no clear consensus defaulting to delete. There is no consensus that the sourcing is sufficiently robust to establish firm notability Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Babcock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, BLP concerns. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep per the Star and Globe and Mail quotes. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. Abundant references to establish notability, although some of them are no longer online or accessible free of charge. Her status as a former sex worker is confirmed by multiple sources. The fact that the article has been vandalized is not a reason to delete it. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the article should be deleted because it was vandalized (I can't find any vandalism, but I guess I'll take your word for it). I simply believe this individual is not sufficiently notable, as nearly all of the sources offer no more than passing mentions, at best. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I also believe these sources are sufficient. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep - Agree about the BLP concerns but the article currently seems balanced and the subject seems to have at least marginal notability. It's not a BLP1E article in my view as the subject is an activist that has been in the news more than once. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - the cited publications confer the required notability, IMO. Concur with Lar on the BLP concerns - A l is o n  ❤ 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage more than a passing mention is the Eye Weekly article, which to me does not show enough notability to lift this from the realm of "barely notable". If the Globe and Mail coverage is very substantial then my opinion would change. Kevin (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of coverage in reliable sources, per Kevin. Where articles are borderline notable and on subjects which inherently draw biographies of living persons violations to them, we should be deleting them, not keeping them when there is no consensus to keep nor delete the article. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep-- the sources in the references section and "other sources" are enough to meet our notability standards. I don't understand the BLP concern here, the article and the references are balanced. We are not talking about a prostitute but   a champion for those without a voice. --Jmundo (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete citations don't provide enough coverage to confer notability. —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:35, 26 October 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.