Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne M. Keller (3rd nomination)

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 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne M. Keller

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

Keller was interviewed in one or two national media outlets and on the Daily Show when Sarah Palin was a candidate for vice president. However, all the actual coverage of Keller's role comes from local newspapers. None of this seems to rise to the level of coverage suggested for local politicans in the notability guidelines for politicians. Past debates have had many people claiming Keller meets the notability requirements for such, but few explaining why. Being interviewed on the Daily Show does not make a person notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, or redirect The coverage is from Anchorage Daily News, not a hyperlocal free paper. Being interviewed on the Daily Show DOES count toward notability. Why would it not? However I vote delete on the 4th nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Wasila, Alaska if you must. Completely non-notable mayor of a tiny town, whose only coverage came from her being the successor to Sarah Palin. Notability is not inherited. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with reliable sources. 1st & 2nd AfDs were Keep! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There must be more suitable for such a short stub. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. Please listen. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 21 February 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.