Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Turney

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 REDIRECT. Her uneventful release undermines many of the keep votes, as her 15 minutes of fame are over. Right now her only notability is in connection with the incident, and that one article will certainly suffice. If she ever develops independent notability as a result of writing a book or whatever à la Jessica Lynch, we can always revive her article. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Turney

Faye Turney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
  • Delete: Yet another example of people creating an article of something tied to a current event that would otherwise be a very frivolous article,If this article was anymore frivolous, I would have posted it for speedy deletionRodrigue 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously passes notability. Yes, it may be friviolous, but the news/sources around the person will just grow in time. If nothing else, it will be a fine short article later. Already fine for a stub. - Denny 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, notability entirely restricted to seizure story. dab (𒁳) 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep If she dies or this blows up into a larger conflagration, and we have deleted the page, we will have to recreate it. If she was tortured or abused, we would have to recreate it. Right now she is the centre of the story, lets leave it for now. WayeMason 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep--Sina 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I would be for keep, but while she is under control of enemies we should not be producing an area where someone could carelessly give information that could be of use to her captors. Wait till she is safe, and the boys are safe, then have the page. Let's have a bit of sense for our service people.--Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only information which should be added to this article is material which is properly referenced. In this case it is almost certainly going to be news stories from credible media organizations. I'm sure that if the Iranians wanted to do a web search they would not just go to the Wikipedia article and ignore the BBC et al. Greenshed 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can add anything, and by going through the history anyone can see what was added by someone and then deleted. Some bright spark might give information that does not meet wiki criteria, is immediately deleted, but gives them a stick to beat her and her fellows with. The Iranians might have people on their team who are aware of the power of the net as a means of gaining info and leave no stone unturned, and actually know a thing or two about dredging up info beyond the ubiquitous google search. Let's just be careful about this. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 16:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that the Iranians will use information they find on her Wikipedia article's edit history against her. Following from that logic, we sould have to delete the entire article on the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, which would pose the same problem for every single person on the crew. --JianLi 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not a criterion to delete. By this logic we couldn't have an article on Terry Schiavo or half the people in prison. - Denny 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By itself, I agree that not being at liberty is not a criterion to delete. However, in combination with other factors unique to this situation as raised by Uncle Davey, I believe it is a criterion to delete. Flying Jazz 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this article contains no information that isn't sourced and that isn't widely available in the mainstream, reputable media? Should all media refuse to report on the story until the soldiers are released? I'm not really sure what your point is. Moncrief 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't find any of these special arguments persuasive. However, I question Turney's independent notability. It may, in the long run, be better to merge her with 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Can someone explain what a comment above: "Yet another example of people creating an article of something tied to a current event that would otherwise be a very frivolous article" even means? Um, yes obviously it would be a "frivolous" article if the current event hadn't happened. Yet it did happen, so therefore it isn't frivolous anymore. To me, that's like saying, "The article on George Washington would be frivolous if he was just a Virginia landowner and had never been elected president of the United States." Yes, and? So? This is an article about someone involved in a very notable current event. People turn to Wikipedia as a resource for information. Keep. And I agree with the concerns above regarding her privacy. Everything in this article needs to be sourced and sourced properly with reliable, public media sources (preferably with the stature of, say, the BBC). There can be no conjecture. Moncrief 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Notability is unlikely to be sustained and really only applies in the context of the ongoing hostage situation.ALR 06:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She has no more involvement in this event than any of the other 14 detainees, none of whom have dedicated articles, and to single this person out is to pander to the, arguable sexist, personality driven prioritites of the press. WP should be above this. Kevin McE 09:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough information available (from credible sources) on the other captives then I would be in favour of creating articles on them as well. In any case, each article stands or falls on its own merits or demerits; good or bad practice elsewhere in the Wikipedia has no bearing on the question of whether this article should stay. Greenshed 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that more of the focus is on her than the other hostages is not her fault, but is an undenyable part of the story. Iran have chosen to make her the key figure and so have the media. Whether that is right or wrong, it gives her greater prominance.
  • Comment:Um,hello,has everyone forgotten about the other 14 men who were also taken captive,none got a seperate article for themselves,so if we keep this article (which I don't agree on) then isn't it fair that we create one for the others,or even one article for all 15?Rodrigue 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentUm, hello, feel free to create and write articles for the other 14 if you want to. Just because they don't have articles yet isn't a good excuse to delete this one. Moncrief 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the last few above comments seem a bit like sock puppetry,or the same person on multiple accounts,particulary User:Elliskev and User:Sephiroth BCR.I think all thos keeps comments in a row like that are just a bit suspicious,but if not then I guess people just seem very strong about keeping this articleRodrigue 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rodrigue, I would advise you to look for more evidence before you accuse others of sock puppetry. Both Elliskev and Sephiroth BCR are well-established editors and don't appear to edit the same articles generally. Greenshed 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm. Thanks for the presumption. No sock puppetry going on here. --Elliskev 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making accusations with absolutely no basis. And besides, these discussions are not majority votes, merits of arguments are considered. Sephiroth BCR 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. mceder (u t c) 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is the most recognisable figure in one of the biggest news stories for years and years between two of the world's most prominent nation. There are a great many articles on here about people who are far far far less famous. How many amateur sports stars are on here? How many other people who were in the news for 10 minutes? There is even an article on the detective who led the enquiry into the Ipswich murders last year, who was a far less recognisable figure in a far smaller news story. Faye Turney will dominate the news for the next month. When she comes home she will be recognised everywhere. There is even talk of a movie deal.
  • Keep for now notable right now, if trends continue this incident will blow up to something bigger. Heck, we have an article on Thomas Delehanty (alas, an unreferenced one), and if he isn't obscure, I don't know what is. If this fizzles out, we can delete it then, but for now it's relevant and cited. --Hojimachongtalk 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - The woman is only known for one thing currently, and that is only for being seized by the Iranians and writing a few open letters to the British people. Certainly she is the face of this story right now, but I do not think that she is notable enough to be mentioned in this encyclopedia for now. Delete for now. - XX55XX 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Barry O'Brien entretien 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.Doktor Who 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to the article of the main incident. Mglovesfun 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect should redirect to the main article and the most important information kept in the main article of the incident. Will not pass notability after crisis ends and some time later. Poeloq 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep Albeit it that she does seem to pass notability for now, that's only because she's linked to the incident as a whole. Yes, she is arguably the most recognizable figure of the affair, but that is almost certainly because she is the only woman hostage. If she does something more notable in the affair, I'll support a full Keep, but if the incident blows over without anything signicant directly related to her, then it should probably be delted. Keep for now in case something big happens HornandsoccerTalk 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. There is very little information on her specifically even in the article on her; the rest is duplicated from the main article.--Cúchullain t/c 01:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Regardless of what else happens in this event, she will be one remembered in the future as the only woman and as a result of her television appearances and "confessions". Iwalters
  • Keep -- She was the leader, the only one who has been used in TV, and she is a SHE. The Hemogoblin
She was not the leader: the most senior of those taken was Captain Chris Air. EamonnPKeane 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Lt Carman is the senior.ALR 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator of this AfD did not properly list it using the templates required. I have completed this listing process. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect"" - She is not anyone of importance or notability besides being sole woman of the captured sailors. 161.253.40.203 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - yes this may all die down, but how can someone who has been subject of the lead news story worldwide for 10 days in a row not be notable? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I'm kinda torn on the issue of deleting this article, because Faye Turney has indeed received a significant proportion of the international press attention of the current hostage crisis. It is conceivable that she could play a pivotal role in the coming days and weeks as the standoff is eventually resolved. But not every person who has ever been in the news deserves a Wikipedia entry, and I think her fame will be short lived. Her actual role in this minor incident is itself minor. So does a minor participant in a minor incident deserve a wikipedia entry? I don't think so, but if her article stayed it would not be a major tragedy. Scottjduffy 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel since she has no notability outside of being one of many personnel captured in a given incident. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and if she had been one of 15 captured in one incident in World War 2 or the Korean War there would be not such article about her as an individual. The references are only from March 28 and 29. Wikipedia does not need to create an article for every news item in the world which is in the news for a few days. If there are eventually so many stories about her specifically that the main article becomes unwieldy, then an article can be split off. Edison 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, suggest revisiting in a year or so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. The event is notable, not her. Arkyan • (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending merge into main article on event in question. And some of the deletion reasons given are just strange. Sorry, but not only is Wikipedia not likely to contribute any information that would be used against her, that's not a valid grounds for deletion, since Wikipedia is not censored. Anyway, I'm not quite ready to redirect/merge though, since this is a developing story and she could develop more personal notability (though of the capturer sailors, I'd say she is the most notable right now. ). Oh well. FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is verifiable and notable. That is what matters. TheQuandry 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - yes this may all die down, but how can someone who has been subject of the lead news story worldwide for 10 days in a row not be notable? - 159753 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I hear an echo? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - patently rediculous nomination. WilyD 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. There is no reason to single out this particular individual, and sufficient information is already in the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. After this all blows over, we'll be able to better determine whether it's worth merging with the main Iranian seizure article. (Think Jessica Lynch: some POWs, especially female ones, become minor celebrities afterwards.) Krimpet (talk/review) 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; individual is notable. As Krimpet notes above, after this situation resolves itself, the content here may be eligible to be moved to a larger overall article. --Mhking 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she's been in the worldwide news, in all media. If the situation had been immediately resolved, maybe there would be a reason for not including it. By now, she has had the misfortune to become notable in a major international dispute. As she individually appeared in the first video, she's notable even beyond the article on the seizure. People who cant tell a major news story should watch the news more, and not judge only by WP articles. The would be a reason for omitting personal details under BLP, but the public events are indelible. DGG 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Disk space is cheap, and this person is notable enough. Perhaps a merger with the main article at a later date, after we see how this pans out, would be reasonable. Bryce 13:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Early Close. The only issue is notability, and the subject clearly satisfies that. We didn't decide to single her out; the media did. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or Merge Naturally, having started it (hello, Rodrigue!), I think this is a valuable article to have. I don't think it ought to be deleted. The subject is notable, there's nothing slanderous or libelous that I can see, and it appears to be from a neutral POV. Maybe instead consider merging it with 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. --Qinshihuangdi 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete She has no notability outside of the event that she is currently involved in. Nor is she the major focus of that event. If she had been the only person taken, or was suddenly executed or tortured, it might be different, but as it stands all info about her should stay in the article about the main event. 195.97.248.74 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Torture is a red herring. The Geneva Conventions prohibit using prisoners for propaganda or parading them publicly. She certainly has been singled out for special abuse. I don't see a distinction between psychological and physical torture. This whole AfD is a tempest in a teapot, likely motivated by POV pushing. We would do well to shut it down immediately. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply How has she been singled out for special abuse? She was admittedly the first to be shown in the videos, but others then followed. I believe I've read that she has been kept apart from her comrades - but the Wikipedia article doesn't actually state that, nor does it mention that she was compelled to wear a hijab, for that matter. If you are going to argue the psychological torture angle, then those points are surely relevant and should be added. I appreciate your point about the media having singled her out, but if it's a keep, then it's a 'weak keep' or a merge and redirect at best. Assuming this situation is resolved with no further damage to the captured personnel, how will the article on Turney benefit future people reading about the incident? There is nothing in the Turney article that couldn't be transferred into the main article, except for various completely irrelevant points (daughter of a non-notable footballer, married in a non-notable church, etc) Richard of York 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into, and redirect to, 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. dcandeto 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The standing guidance relating to the deletion of biographical articles is to be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). As I indicated above, it is an uncontestable fact that the article on Turney easily meets the at least one of the criteria; this is not a borderline case. All those arguing for deletion need to explain why this article is special case for deletion vis-à-vis the guidance. So far no one has done that - because, I suggest, there is no valid argument which stems from the relevent guidance. This discussion does not run along the lines of a simple numerical vote and so those who want to see this article deleted need to develop their argument in light of the clear guidance to the contrary. Greenshed 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I accept she is notable Greenshed, but only within the confines of this event, which she is sharing with 14 other servicemen and which already has an article. The media have done a few "brave mum" pieces on her it's true, but all the crew's names have been mentioned in multiple media articles now, so either they should all have an individual entry or none of them should. For me it's looking more and more like a merge. Richard of York 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I urge all participants to read the WP:BIO and set moral judgments aside. Also have a look at Jessica Lynch and explain why this is different. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That the other servicepeople don't have articles now (and are you sure they all don't? Have you checked?) is an absurd reason to delete this one. It's like saying, when Wikipedia was much younger, that, say, an article about a county in England should be deleted because all the counties didn't yet have articles. Generate articles for the other servicepeople if you like! That they don't have one isn't cause to delete this one. Moncrief 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment You misunderstand me Moncrief. I am not saying that her article should be merged because none of the other soldiers have one, merely that under Wikipedia's notability guidelines all 15 would qualify, and yet she's the only one been given her own page. (PS I haven't checked all fifteen names but her name is the only one with a link to it on the main article.) I see it as less like your "counties" argument and more like this article on Big Brother. All the contestants got national coverage for weeks in the media, but only those who went on to have notable careers outside of BB have their own article (which is how she differs from Lynch, who has gone on to become the subject of a film). Nothing to do with moral judgements, and I realise that I am in the minority here, but my personal view is that the article adds absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. Although actually, I have revised my original view - it's not a delete, but a merge. Richard of York 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable individual closely involved in a notable event. --J2thawiki 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Richard of York's points. I have considered starting articles for other captives but I am disinclined so to do whilst this article is facing the chop. I see no point in putting in the work on another captive only for it to be deleted as well. Anyway, as Moncrief outlines above, the absence of other articles has no bearing on whether this article should stay or go. My view is that one of the benefits of the notability guidelines is that they let editors know when their verifiable, NPOV, notable, (etc) contributions will be kept/improved. Those arguing for a merge have a better (but not that good) argument than the deletionists. If I thought that this article had no prospect of making it past a stub then I too would favour a merge. However, with a few hours of work it probably could be taken past a stub now and anyway it is a near certainty that further information about Turney will become available. Greenshed 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that there are a wide selection of independent sources available and she has had multiple features in credible news media--Amxitsa 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual has no notability outside of event. I tend to think historically on these things...does every person that was ever a POW or hostage rate an article?--Looper5920 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge There is now information on all the other "Detainees". If we don't see a page for each of them, including the officers that appeared on TV, then this should be deleted, or the current section of the Iranian Detainee article should be explained to contain more information on each. If something drastic happens to anyone of these persons, then yes, article. But IMHO its all just related to the incident and not really to one detainee or another. 218.101.11.87 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP --Bangabalunga 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Turney is not notable but the event is. --Dariusk 02:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, but I'm a bit puzzled here, of course this person is notable. RFerreira 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete I'm a little suprised of these outright "keeps" that just say "of course she is notable". I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you, at the moment she is not notable, the capture of 15 British troops is notable but she alone is not. However I agree with above points that if something happened in the future which makes her notable then the article ought to be kept. If nothing happens then I don't feel it is notable enough to stay on its own. SGGH 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I was not aware that she was actually involved in the Iraq War. The article states that she was assigned to Serria Leone and that HMS Cornwall was patrolling to catch smugglers. I may just not have read somewhere where it says otherwise, but from this information alone can we really say she fought in the Iraq War? SGGH 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read WP:N and WP:BIO and you'll see that not only is she notable but that this conclusion is inescapable. Anyone who says she's not notable doesn't understand what notability is in the context of Wikipedia. WilyD 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but I have a very good understanding of what notability is in the context of wikipedia. She is not notable outside of the events. Now that they have been released the article of her alone will most likely not expand more than a few sentences. If a user wants to research the event, then they will look at the article on the event not another article that just looks at the event again from the perspective of one of the sailors. I would appreciate it if you didn't question other user's capabilities just because they don't agree with you. Thanks SGGH 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry if that came off as a personal attack - I'll rephrase it as The argument that that she's not notable shows no understanding of the meaning of notability in the context of Wikipedia. I didn't question the capability of anyone - I didn't speculate on why they didn't understand the policy in question, and I won't now. But this is a discussion, and it is important to note when an argument attempts to apply a policy in a grossly inappropriate way. That way, the closing admin can look at the arguments and realise the "keep" argument is Passes WP:BIO, WP:LIVING and WP:V]], while the only argument advanced for deletion is Fails WP:ILIKEIT. WilyD 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hey, maybe she'll become the next PM. Sweetnsourbkr 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, echoing WilyD knowing the British press she'll doubtless experience much greater media exposure following her release. As a reference point for future retrospective researchthis article would be a useful source and certainly superior to other peer encyclopaedia resources Dick G 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, informative, passes notability. --Caiman 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, My reason being that I came on to this article to find information about her, and that therefore makes it useful as an encyclopaedic article. Just as the Oxford Dictionary allows new words into the dictionary when it is used enough, this page should be a part of Wikipedia because people use it. Viralmonkey 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Caiman Wildyoda 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Her involvement in such a significant event makes her notable, as per the primary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". This is most certainly true. She has also been singled out by both the Iranians and the media as being the only women in the group. Adambro 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - not notable outside the context of the main article. Any relevant information can be merged into there. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. User:Rodrigue is crazy. Leading Seaman Turney has now gained worldwide fame because of her kidnapping. Absolutely notable. -- Voldemort 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that the 15 sailors have gained worldwide fame because of their kidnapping, and their kidnapping is covered in the article about their kidnapping :) SGGH 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. This was an unnecessary nomination, since these things eventually sort themselves out after the media attention goes away; see WP:RECENT. —Kevin 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has been a big focus of this whole rigmarole. She's been the "face" of it all.... OR... redirect but make her importance clear in the overall article. --GracieLizzie 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - OK, passes notability. But 80% of the present article carries the same information as 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel - of course she traveled back with the other personnel! I agree that there is a need to highlight her role in the main article. Rgds, - Trident13 14:35, 5 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faye_Turney&oldid=1137845316"