Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Ann Friedrich

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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ann Friedrich

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

Was deleted as A7 and then listed at DRV where some sources were found. The deleting admin consents to restoration subject to an AFD. So here we are. As I closed the DRV I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news archive search shows multiple possibly-independent-of-each-other reliable news sources with articles from January 2005, March 2005, April 2009, and other dates. Non-paywalled articles are here (The News, New Glasgow, 4/4/09), here (CBC News, 3/9/05), and here (CBC News, 3/15/05). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The embryonic stub article was effectively blanked before another editor requested speedy deletion. This is what it had looked like previously. The DRV was here. Thincat (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this person's modus operandi she's got a lot of names. Good search terms include Melissa Ann Weeks, Millie Weeks, Melissa Ann Stewart and Melissa Ann Shephard.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a sourced rewrite - I was the editor who blanked/stubbed the article due to the lack of reliable sources and to unsourced, sensationalistic claims made within the article. What was there was unsalvageable. I have no objection to the article being rewritten with proper sourcing and an appropriate, encyclopedic tone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete or if someone is willing to work on it right now, immediately userfy, BUT require that any rewritten article that is based on any existing revision go through some type of review, but not necessarily anything as long as AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:GNG, a topic is considered notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and not a BLP problem as long as all claims are well sourced (which they were last I looked). Hobit (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article as it exists right now is well sourced and the subject is notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the crystal-clear consensus already formed. Why the relisting? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 13 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.