Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kylie Sturgess

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Sturgess

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

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

Kylie Sturgess has been an author of some blog articles and journal articles but has not been the subject of any published articles...therefore does not fill the criteria of "notable".

This was nominated incompletely by User:Sydney59. I hope I have now got the nomination correct. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to fix this nomination as this article was on my watch list. At this stage I merely note that this nomination is the sum total of the contributions by User:Sydney59. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable. I'm a bit suspicious of someone whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to nominate a page for deletion.Sgerbic (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Silly nomination. Check User:Sidney59's contributions. No, check how many sources are on Kylie Strugess's page. Tinton5 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether this is my first or 100th post is irrelevant to this discussion. The notability of the person is the focus. The number of sources in the article is also irrelevant as none of the sources quoted in this article are "about" Kylie Sturgess. ..."the person is notable if they are the subject of multiple published secondary sources". If Wikipedia is simply going to become a homepage for anyone who has a blog or who publishes an article online then it will simply become a source for self promotion. My apologies for not nominating this deletion properly. Comment added by Sydney59 (talk)

Sydney59 has me looking at the page in more detail. I think it needs a re-write and in-line citations. I have included a few more citations that might be used to improve the page. I don't have the time right now to review all of the citations and get the page up to par. But I have left the citations on the Talk page for another editor to follow. Sgerbic (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These citations do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability either. The issue here is whether there are any published secondary sources about this person...let alone multiple published secondary sources that are "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." None of these citations demonstrate notability.

Comment added by Sydney59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 5 January 2012 (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.