Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeline Hearne

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

=[[Azeline Hearne]]=

:{{la|Azeline Hearne}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Azeline Hearne}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Azeline Hearne}})

microstub article with no assertion of notability, not even a full sentence Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

keep. The person is a title subject of a historical study ([http://books.google.com/books?id=2xvHGIlXopsC]). "Hearne ... became one of the wealthiest ex-slaves in the former Confederacy" ([http://www.lsu.edu/lsupress/bookPages/9780807134054.html]). OT, have you spoken to Rich F. before nominating a whole bunch of his stubs for deletion? East of Borschov 07:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep I wouldn't encourage Rich Farmbrough to make more of these, but Azeline Hearne does have a multi-paragraph ANB entry, so this article definitely has potential. Zagalejo^^^ 08:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep A cursory Google Scholar search[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Azeline+Hearne%22] reveals sources, confirming notability and making this a clean up issue, not a deletion issue. Redfarmer (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{tl|rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The current version is a workable stub, with independent references that focus squarely on the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did

18:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep -meets guidelines and has plenty of available sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 October 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.