Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teri Sue Wood (2nd 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 but as Rhinoracer said, it needs more sources for verification.--JForget 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Sue Wood

Previously deleted article. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources provided or found. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Lack of reliable sources is a major issue Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A number of independent websites call her Wandering Star a "highly acclaimed science fiction comic series." This leads me to believe that reliable sources may be out there. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATT (NOR+V) requires attribution of sourcing. This article was deleted once for this reason, and essentially recreated while still not addressing this concern. See also related afd, where her comic series article was also deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely lacking in sources, but she is the author of a fairly well-known comic. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Previous deletion is very odd, notably since the consensus was far and away for keep. That makes me think this should be kept, particularly in light of the above reasoning.JJJ999 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJJ999 - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion here suggests notability. Agree with editors who note that the previous delete was incorrectly closed. The closer said "per" an editor who only critiqued the article ("a sub-stub"), not the notability of the subject, and there were clear assertions of notability in that discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both previous discussions appear to manifest a keep consensus, and the sourcing meets de minimis standards. Multiple book titles on Amazon from commercial/nonsubsidy publisher. Seems to have been most prominent just before significant online coverage of "alternative" comic books became prevalent. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (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.