Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ingram

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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ingram

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~One event popularity~~ NewMutants (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked as sock of User:Undertrialryryr. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from the nominator above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the nominator's banning as a sock puppet, I actually do agree with their assessment — this is effectively a WP:BLP1E of a person who isn't the subject of any sustained or encyclopedic interest outside the context of that 1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, which is probably the same rationale for keeping Mary Kay Letourneau. Major SamSamSam (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-story, really. It was a professional matter that was dealt with appropriately. Wikipedia shouldn't deal with personal relationships like a tabloid (WP:NOTTABLOID). It's not an area of academic interest. It's also clearly a lot different from the Mary Kay Letourneau case. Claudebone (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me this is an obvious keep, because there are more than 3 various references. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2015 (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.