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. Tone 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Allison Kilkenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

lack of notability Minbbb (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— Minbbb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Allison Kilkenny is a journalist who has written articles in all of the places mentioned on her Wikipedia page. The facts on her page here are true. She is noteworthy because she has been producing articles in magazines and online for years, and she also co-hosts an online podcast today. There is no reason to remove her page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Allison Kilkenny is published on several prominent internet news websites (including The Huffington Post), featured in a book published by The Nation, and currently is the host of a popular podcast called Citizen Radio. In this podcast Kilkenny discusses some of the most important issues of our time with notable intellectuals and journalists including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Amy Goodman. She is gaining wider notability and already has a great deal of credibility in the blogosphere and the emerging world of podcasts. Most importantly, Kilkenny is part of an emerging movement of independent voices taking advantage of new forms of media (in her case podcasts) to express themselves and share information. Therefore, this page should not be deleted. MCVMCVMCV (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— MCVMCVMCV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have read Allison Kilkenny's work on The Huffington Post and have listened to her commentary. She brings a valuable viewpoint to discussions of current concern and is quite worthy of this listing on Wikipedia. There is no reason for it to be deleted. Mikegoldnj (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)— Mikegoldnj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks to be a vanity article. No independent reliable sources whatsoever. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, embarassing old-style vanity article complete with "look at my webcam!" self-taken picture. Geez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks suspicious to me that this article was created with what was clearly a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Wikiaddictiam. Considering that this account is also the one that uploaded what appears to be a self-taken webcam photo, I think it's safe to say that Ms. Kilkenny created her own Wikipedia article which is an immediate red flag. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Suspicious all around, actually. The article was created by a newly minted SPA, AfD by a newly-minted SPA, and immediately supported by a cadre of newly minted SPAs. I like the lady's politics, but I not only suspect a vanity article, I suspect a vanity AfD, and wonder whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship. In any event, let's get this in black and white: sorry, SPAs, but the only facts we can take into consideration is not the putative importance of her message or her alleged new-media credentials, but whether she has received the outside recognition necessary to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far, with the top Google hits for her almost uniformly self-created or otherwise non-independent, she has not.  Ravenswing  16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a few sources about her specifically are found - I looked yesterday and found nothing. She should be mentioned on the huffpost article, perhaps, as part of the editorial staff. I also noted the amusing way this AfD started, but it had no effect on my evaluation.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I wouldn't include her, no. First off, how many bloggers do the Huffington Post have? If it was a small number, you'd think she'd be prominent enough to pass the GNG. If there are a lot, then that doesn't suggest she's notable. It's not that we list every reporter of the Boston Globe or Washington Post staffs in their articles.  Ravenswing  19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comment by Ravenswing, who wondered "whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship": I like the subject's writing and was trying to follow a link, got lost, Googled, and was surprised to find the Wikipedia article. I like radical politics, but I like Wikipedia and its integrity, too, which is why I AfD'd the vanity article. I promptly received Wiki-talk claiming the subject was “clearly targeted for political reasons”. Minbbb (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough; a reasonable explanation, and in any event, we'd regard the AfD on its merits.  Ravenswing  17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage of the person appears to exist, in fact nothing seems to exist except for a few articles talking about her boyfriend. Fails WP:GNG and this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:33, 30 October 2010 (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.