Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Washburn

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Washburn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a case of

WP:BIO1E, no in-depth coverage other than that a cheerleader enlisted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, appears to pass
talk) 16:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have enough coverage to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has received enough sustained coverage to pass GNG/
BIO like this article, for instance. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The subject has received sustained coverage in reliable and independent sources over an extended period of time. Therefore the subject passes
WP:BASIC. The length of time by which the subject has been discussed allows for an article to be created on the subject. --ARose Wolf 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that meets the requirements of a stand-alone article and appears to be mainly promotional. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does seem to have attracted SIGCOV in RS, and therefore passes
WP:GNG. But having read through the article, I have no idea why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 July 2021 (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.