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. Adequate reliable sources found during the course of the debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Gilliam[edit]

Leah Gilliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable. There is one reliable source on the page, the New York Times, which mentions Gilliam in one sentence. All the others are either selfpub or not reliable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability has not been established. Conflict of Interest is also apparent.Boston (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability has not been shown per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote changed to keep: Notability has now been shown. Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Ray (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep per results by Eric Yurken. I had dismissed the Gnews hits as trivial, especially since many of them were not of this Leah Gilliam, but had not thought to look in Google Books. Ray (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing to suggest that the subject is notable per BIO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as article does not establish notability per WP:BIO. Being mentioned in The New York Times in one sentence doesn't qualify. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 10:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I admit it does need a rewrite. However, I believe Ms. Giliam has received enough coverage from verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources to meet our inclusion guidelines as established by creative professionals per the references shown here, [1]. I’ll add some to the article and start editing the piece. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, I'll be interested in seeing your results. I did a fairly thorough examination of those results before nominating and could find precious little to qualify as "significant coverage", per WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a major problem, I hope :-). But than again, I am not the best writer, Welcome any and all help if you are interested? ShoesssS ^Talk 00:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Got the same results as ShoesssS on Google News. See also the results of this search on Google Books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it appears more reliable sources have been found and establish the notability. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Shoessss. — neuro^(talk) 09:54, 14 December 2008 (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.