Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemmie Moodie

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. J04n(talk page) 10:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clemmie Moodie

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

No evidence for notability--no adequate third party sources about this journalist DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Guardian blog [1] is third-party. —rybec 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot of reliable source coverage is tabloidish and written by her as opposed to being about her, and coverage in the Daily Mirror is problematic as it's a primary source, but as well as the Guardian source mentioned I also see coverage in the Daily Record and BBC Radio 1 Review Show. If not keep, it should at least redirect to The 3AM Girls. I can't remember if being a journalist for a major national newspaper is inherently notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason why a journalist from a major newspaper would be intrinsically notable, though some of the most important ones will be. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 16 March 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) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to The 3AM Girls. I cannot believe that we need an article on its editor as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the piece, I am new to this so please forgive me if I sound naive. I have added more third party references as suggested and will continue to do so. '3am girls' no longer exists and is now a column in Clemmie Moodie's name so this is why I did not add it to the '3am girls'.Dobbin1 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 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, J04n(talk page) 10:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: want to give editors a chance to see the editing done to the page yesterday. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- changing my vote. If the column now appears with her name, my suggestion was not the best one. However, the article does not say what Dobbin1 asserts. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 1 April 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.