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 delete. This debate nicely shows the tension between our interpretation of notability and that presumed elsewhere. In closing an AFD we look at a rough consensus based on measuring arguments against policy rather then counting snouts. A lot of the keep arguments are very weak - a lot of assertion and relying on previous discussions. The most compelling keep arguments revolve around the Christianity today interview and appearance on a TV programme. Reliable sources have to be primary, not secondary so a promotional interview for a film isn't going to count and the TV appearance is a couple of minutes of interview in the context of a general discussion and not specifically about her. The paucity of reliable secondary sources concerning this person are argued by the delete side and they have challenged the sources provided and highlighted an absence of additional reliable material. There is no consensus that the sources provided pass the notability bar and a reasonable plain reading that they are both primary and therefore ineligible to count towards notability. Another keep argument was based around significant coverage being achieved through aggregating trivial coverage. This is not a policy based argument and, in a BLP, what counts are strong sources. The sources here are not enough to pass the inclusion bar so the rough consensus is to delete SpartazHumbug!11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]