Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Prager

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Prager

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, was written by a single source seemingly related to subject, reads like a resume, link is to biography on subject's personal web page, did not meet readability criteria, has not been edited since May 2012 Hungryweevils (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources currently included in the article are not the strongest, but multiple additional sources found by simple Google search include the Los Angeles Times [1], LA Weekly [2], Elle [3], Flaunt [4]. Appears to pass WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A poor article in desperate need of a critical response section, but thanks to links posted she does just about meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a bad article about a notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon additional sources noted above, the subject appears notable, and the article just seems in desperate need of a rewrite. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:BASIC and the sources presented above by User:Arxiloxos. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 12 April 2013 (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.