Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yda Hillis Addis


 * 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 '''Snowball keep. Nomination appears to have been in bad faith as well. Non-admin closure.  TN ‑ X - Man  20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)'''

Yda Hillis Addis
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"Very poorly written, no references, not good factual material."- User talk:Chaos4tu I am completing this improperly formatted nom for User:Chaos4tu. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Under A1. Little or no context. I added the tag. Speedy KEEP after reviewing and finding out that the nominator blanked the bage prior to nomination.-Brougham96 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since the nominator (Chaos4tu, not Trevor MacInnis) is also the original author of the article, along with the articles about Addis's husband and father, one can't help wondering exactly what is going on here. The article's subject certainly existed, and some, at least, of the lurid details of her marriage seem to be sourceable. I see no reason for deleting this. Deor (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, this isn't really a second nomination. I can find no record of an earlier AfD of the article. Deor (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. However, the article really does need references related to her written work (she has some relevant ghits). Her well-referenced personal issues are not nearly as important. What's needed is for Chaos4tu to speak up about whats going on. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck per link provided by Antandrus to talk page. Keep strengthened. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; sourced, verifiable, notable. The first "nomination" was apparently a speedy delete attempt.  By the way, the author explained herself on my talk page here.  Deor, thank you for finding that piece in the Independent:  I missed it when writing the History of Santa Barbara, California, and now I'm wondering if it needs this salacious bit to spice it up.  Antandrus  (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This nom seems unaccountably strange. First Chaos4tu is busy protecting the article, then blanking it. I'm unclear about Addis' importance but there is obviously WP:V sources to support an article on her. I can't see a clear reason to delete the article. Pigman ☿ 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah, now that I've seen the comments on Antandrus's talk page it's making a little more sense. Still, this is a historical subject, not a WP:BLP issue, so wanting the article to disappear seems extreme. Pigman ☿ 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but needs lots of sources. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:18, 3 September 2008 (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.