Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Law

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Law

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

Not enough evidence of having been discussed in depth in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444 ^(talk) 14:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just added a profile article from The Guardian in the context of her play Single White Female which got a lot of coverage in Australia earlier this year. She has received one of the Queensland Literary Awards and an AWGIE Award (albeit in reasonably minor categories), and had articles about her in at least the ABC and The Guardian. This easily passes notability. Boneymau (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is not massive coverage there is definitely steady coverage by different multiple very reputable IRS over several years. Aoziwe (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has KDS4444, who nominated this article for deletion within three hours of its being created, considered how demoralising this is for a new(ish) editor? The subject of this article seems to me to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though not relevant to this discussion, I see that KDS4444 has been blocked indefinitely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree it passes GNG. Kerry (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (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.