Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Tyler-Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Anas talk? 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Tyler-Lewis[edit]
- Kelly Tyler-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is being listed per the request of the subject - see OTRS ticket # 2007062910015362. Kelly wrote a book and won an Emmy for a documentary she directed. Other then that there is nothing to be said in the article. Right now it's a stub and there isn't any way to expand it past that point. Given that I think we should honor her request to delete the article outright (I've already stubbed to resolve privacy issues). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Winning the Emmy makes her notable Corpx 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know what her privacy concerns were, but all I see in the Google cached version are universities and institutions where she got degrees and funding, nothing intrusive. And an Emmy winner, even for documentaries, is notable. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Groggy, I see nothing here that could spark a privacy concern -- birth year (not date)? education? research-related travel? Obviously we're not here to discuss that as they've already been deemed out of bounds, and I'm sure that the content of the OTRS request is similarly private so we can't even know the concern. I have to express that this is exactly what has worried me about the new "on request" deletion policy. Skin out an article until it's pointless, then say there's no point to keeping, for someone who would normally be notable. There was a recent similar AFD for someone who is clearly dismissible as a crank. This subject doesn't come with any such baggage, just a polite "I don't want to be on Wikipedia", and I suppose that some will want to honor that request. But every time I see one of these I feel the bar being ratcheted upwards a nudge. Would Google honor a request not to turn up results? --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google has procedures to allow websites to be excluded from indexing... so in a manner of speaking, yes.
- Anyway, we get these requests all the time we tell them no. Sometimes, they are truely non-notable and the article qualifies for a speedy. Sometimes it doesn't fit speedy and the article is borderline - so we let the community decide. Feel free to dismiss the fact that the subject has personally asked for the article to be deleted if thats how you feel. I just think in a borderline case we should give it at least a bit of consideration. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the merits of the Emmy. If it must be a stub, then let it be a stub. Being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being nominated for 2 Emmys in one year is notable. Being part of a working group in Antarctica, while not notable in itself, adds to her notability. Also, if you Goggle her and get rid of the books, there is material to add to the article. So it can be expanded by editors. Vegaswikian 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.