Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Armstrong

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Armstrong

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

I would've PRODed too as my searches have found nothing better than a few links at Books, there's nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fairly certainly notable per WP:NTEMP, but it may require some determined work to show this as almost all sources will be pre-internet. Basically, a newsreader who became one of the most instantly recognisable celebrities on British television for four or five years in the 1980s and then faded away again - but she was getting plenty of coverage when her career was at its height. This review in the Glasgow Herald (one of the apparently very few British newspapers whose 1980s issues are online and not behind a paywall) seems to come from just after her fame had peaked - but there should be plenty more (some of them likely to be distinctly more detailed) from other newspapers during that period. PWilkinson (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pre-internet era significance. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's searches were highly ineffective. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2016 (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.