Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Galbally
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (aeropagitica) 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-aggrandizing autobiographical article written by the subject (User:Rhondag). If the subject is indeed a "prominent Australian public intellectual," someone will eventually write a good article about her. Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical articles applies. Anirvan 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the related page Galbally, Rhonda because it is a duplicate of Rhonda Galbally. Anirvan 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:GOOGLE with flying colors. Seems like she's notable. -- Nishkid64 Talk 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable, verified by Disability Advisory Council of Victoria website. I will redirect Galbally, Rhonda to the proper title. NawlinWiki 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia:Autobiography aside, the article seems fine, other than a need for a little clean up.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Public intellectual in Australia. Gets 78 hits on EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre and has reasonably high profile in the community. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- meets my minimum criteria for inclusion. - Longhair 03:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is marginal but enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Caution the article creator about WP:AUTO, though. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, passes WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 07:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, starting your own article is lame, but seems notable enough. Lankiveil 07:18, 31 August 2006 (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.