Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Bagshawe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:49, 3 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 09:49, 3 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator (and now even he's not sure). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louise Bagshawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable candidate redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN Wintonian (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:N for coverage, if not yet politician. If your split from your husband is enough for a broadsheet to pick up on it, you're notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they are closely related to another person with an article does not mean they qualify for one themselves. See "Invalid criteria" just under: WP:POLITICIAN. --Wintonian (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or rather see: WP:NOTINHERITED. --Wintonian (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand me. My divorce didn't make it to the Torygraph, hers did. That's coverage in WP:RS, and an indication of some WP:N as a person, irrespective of whether she's a politician. Besides which, with that many titles published, I'd be hard-pressed to argue against her notability as an author (should anyone care). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I missed "With other bestselling authors" as it is only a brief mention, but the article really ought to be about the fact that she is an author not a candidate perhaps a NPV tag should be added? I'm not really sure whether to keep it or delete it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they are closely related to another person with an article does not mean they qualify for one themselves. See "Invalid criteria" just under: WP:POLITICIAN. --Wintonian (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- possibly notable as an author. Still NN as a politician - unless and until elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very notable as an author. Major coverage in newspapers proves notability. Notability allows, per WP:NNC, the article to cover her political work in full, even if it's not the source of her notability. Bastin 09:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Has sold millions of romance novels on both sides of the Atlantic. She's extremely well known in her genre. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2010 (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.