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. Davewild 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nominated purely for it being unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist, not to mention that wikipedia is not a buyers/collectors gide. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is asserted and shown, however the cleanup tag should remain in place. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: notability is only shown from primary, non-independent sources. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find over 100,000 references to Lorna Bailey on google. Many seem to be reliable sources to me. Marcus22 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and keep the cleanup tag. Only one of the countless references is independent. I think there is notability in there somewhere, among all the catalogue and promotion stuff. Is there any way to give a deadline for cleanup - finding independent sources and slimming it down drastically? JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (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.