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. —Kurykh 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Possible promotional article that does not appear to establish notability. -WarthogDemon 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although it is, possibly, a promotional article and should be re-written with sources, the notations in the article certainly establish notability. At the very least, time should be given to the article's originator to cite sources and provide further information. LACameraman 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. McKay received national media attention, some of it directly though mostly indirectly. Article appears sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above contra nom, as it desperately needs sourcing, and it is completely unsourced as is. Also needs wikification. Bearian 21:33, 1 August 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.