Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Ecclestone

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I've also put a coi tag on the article because it appears that the editor the nominator is in conflict with may represent some kind of "management company". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ecclestone

The article is a poorly written publicity entry. I have made several attempts to make it more encyclopedic, but my changes are continually undone. As the article stands, it is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability can also be questioned, although this is NOT my reason for proposing deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:BEFORE? AfD is supposed to consider what the article could be like, not what it's like at the moment. "Poorly-written" and "publicity entry" are very clearly not reasons to delete.
If the problem is that changes to improve the article are being reverted, take it to the talk page; if the reverting person refuses to talk to you, ask an admin to help.
The notability concern would be a reason to delete, if it wasn't for all the coverage in national newspapers she's had.
Overall, I'm going to go with snow keep because there's no chance whatsoever that this will be deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did read WP:BEFORE. Thanks for the advice regarding resolution. The talk page already has some delete questions, which is why I chose this route. I'll revert the article back to my previous edits and we'll see what happens.Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep, while the article is poorly written, there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources already to show notability. Article should be fixed not deleted. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale advanced for deletion. The issues are raised are ones of editting and are not resolved by deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (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.