Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope Trunk (3rd 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. J04n(talk page) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk

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

This person is not notable, per WP:BIO Jirt (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Given the number of prior unsuccessful deletion attempts, more is needed than a mere assertion that is put forth by the editor proposing this AfD (for some reason only one prior AfD is linked on the talk page). The nominator has not provided any new reasons for deleting the article. In the meantime, the article has had additional sources added. While a number of the references might be the subject herself, there are still several independent reliable sources cited. In fact, since this was re-nominated, another editor found numerous additional sources. All applicable notability guidelines have had the necessary thresholds met. Agent 86 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, the same reasons I gave in the second AfD go for this one, too.Agent 86 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, significant discussion among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think I have sufficiently "rescued" what was a poorly sourced article about a subject who I believe meets the criteria outlined in WP:NOTE. I've added multiple secondary sources from major newspapers. She's authored three books, been a syndicated columnist, and has a career blog that is not infrequently mentioned in reliable sources. The article was not good before, but that doesn't mean she doesn't meet the notability criteria. And I think I've addressed the primary source problem and added sufficient context to make it a decent article. I don't see how this article could warrant deletion at this point when there was no consensus the previous two times. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job on that, by the way. Agent 86 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 16:15, 16 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.