Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Clampton

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

There don't seem to be independent sources confirming the notability of the subject, whether addressed as a person or the letters themselves. Discussion on talk page has been inconclusive. Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• keep Also nominated as person of the year at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1574048/Who-is-your-Person-of-the-Year.html. Also [http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/12/07/opinion/opinion_30058439.php] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• The links you provided only show mention in a single Telegraph blog comment and a reader-submitted letter to The Nation, none of which I believe are reliable sources. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Blog comments and reader letters don't change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I am the author of the article (so feel free to discount my vote) but as the subject matter is of a fictional person I believe this is not the usual situation for notability of people. I think it is more akin to a character in a book series. We have articles or stub articles about characters in books so why should we not have this article about a character that notably kept appearing in a newspaper - so much so that the newspaper itself decided to print a compilation. Witty Lama 04:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Clampton||}}

• Merge I think a summary mention in the paper's article would be adequate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable per WP:BIO: not enough coverage from reliable secondary reliable independent sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Clampton||}}

• Merge: I agree with ChildofMidnight. Apparently this person is big enough to have acquired some fame, and a redirect to the paper would not be amiss. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Clampton||}}

• Keep or Merge It's borderline right now. If the article gets beefed up with some sources, it would be more helpful. I'm okay with either one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep essentially this is the title of a pseudonymous column (despite being published through the letters page) in a major newspaper. Seems notable to me, and of a fair amount of historical interest. Dybryd (talk) 05:46, 20 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.