Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Craig-Wood

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) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kate Craig-Wood

Kate Craig-Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Questionably notable and improvable? as the best my searches instantly found was this, this and this and with the author being named "Khcw77", this suggests it may've been the subject and there's been no improvement since starting in April 2008. Pinging Missvain, Thoughtfortheday, Captain Fishy and Escape Orbit. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to say weak keep on this. The fact that the nominator would even bring up that it might be notable and improvable raises a red flag, then you have the fact that it does have decent references establishing notability. Again, I don't like that this may have been an autobiography, and it does kind of read like a promotional resume, but that's not enough for me to say delete. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think the article is too promotional, but perhaps a scaled-down version would be worth keeping. weak keep Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I agree with what's been said above; the article needs a bit of a rewrite. There's no doubt it started as an autobiography (see the talk page) but the subject does satisfy WP:GNG and as such is both notable and improvable. Note to closing admin: I happen to know the subject personally (although we haven't met for 15 or so years!) so feel free to disregard my opinion if you feel that constitutes a COI. WaggersTALK 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per above - The article isn't good but it's not that bad either, Anyway can't be arsed to link every single news sources but Google brings up alot of stuff, Notability's there so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - This seemed like a good candidate for improvement. I've gone through and added citeable sources and gotten rid of some of the less important detail. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - yes, the article can be improved, but she's been surveys in media, thus passing WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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.