Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Sykes

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Sykes

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

Promotional article for an individual whose notability does not rise above the local level. Article is completely unreferenced and was created by a single purpose account. A quick google search and google news search doesn't turn up any reliable, secondary sources which cover this individual in a significant way. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) SnottyWong ^communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of it may just be badly written, but a lot more needs to be done to establish notability. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs to be worked on, but is definitely notable. Seems to have a fair few articles about her in the press. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Creator has only edited this article, I suspect COI. Could possibly change to keep if article was proved to be NPOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe the person is notable, but acknowledge the referencing, POV and COI issues. I've just made some changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Keep since I'm seeing a lot of references to her as a lawyer in Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal and 2007 terror raids coverage and work is happening on the article Stuartyeates (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because it clearly isn't notable enough to be included. Doesn't have very reliable sources either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Meaning, articles that lack sufficient evidence of notability should be improved, not deleted. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems a good article could be written here that might well meet notability, and COI/POV alone is not grounds for deletion Vartanza (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches for her name on two local news papers reveal pages of hits across multiple issues [1] [2] There's lots of good stuff there related to the terrorism raids, treaty issues, her work for her iwi, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on condition that it gets a re-write. I have certainly heard of this person but the article as it stands reads like COI, and has grammar issues to boot. NZ forever (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While she may have a notable cause, none of the news articles are about her. She only gains a mention half way down or below in those stories. That fails WP:BIO.--Lester 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Works on international issues and has made the New Zealand news quite often, that should be good enough for notability. No reason to delete. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2010 (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.