Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlin Ross

: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. BJTalk 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Carlin Ross]]=

:{{la|Carlin Ross}} ([{{fullurl:Carlin Ross|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlin Ross}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable activist, accomplishments are primarily associational, not coverage of the specific person for things they have done. MBisanz talk 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlin Ross||}}

  • Delete. References do not deal primarily with her, and actions do not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - name is in lede of [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/national/20FEM.html this NYT article]. Appears to be a shameless media junky, but she is no doubt notable. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete That NYT article mentions her in the first paragraph but all it says is she started a website, completely trivial. Significant non-trivial coverage is needed for WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as shameless [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Newcherrybomb&redirect=no self promotion]. Subject seems to be in the business of getting hits online, so that's relevant, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The only reason given above for keeping is that she is given prominence in a newspaper report. If everything that ever got covered in a newspaper report were considered notable then notability would be a pretty weak criterion. Bearian says "she is no doubt notable", but to say that you don't doubt notability is not enough: you need to produce evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 14 July 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.