Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Gordon

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Gordon

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

Non-notable individual known for being a repeat a offender. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per above. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to the discussion on the articles talkpage and because there was a consensus breach. Under a consensus policy an article can't be deleted because the AfD nomination was 2 days after the prod. Originally, as I read, Wikipedia gives 10 days on article in order for it to be improved. Only if the user will remove the tag or the time is up, only then it can go to an AfD.--Mishae (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where did you read that? I've never heard of such a policy, and having one would be ludicrous. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Read the first paragraph on AfD (its 7 days actually, someone told me it was 10 though).--Mishae (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure what you are referring to. A PROD can be removed by anyone at anytime. I removed it because you disagreed with its deletion (and the PROD) and moved it to a AfD in order to get more comments concerning the article's ability to meet Wikipedia guidelines. The AfD will allow editors 7 days to comment on its notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae, deletion policy does not work that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The procedure of this AfD is fine. Appears to be a local crime story with some local press, but nothing to indicate notability such as wide national and international exposure over a long period of time, see WP:CRIMINAL. (Also, the two Tampa Bay Times refs are considered a single reference for notability purposes.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Procedurally fine, obviously. Subject is of very limited local notability only, with no indication of satisfying criteria for WP:BLP.--Korruski^Talk 09:42, 15 October 2013 (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.