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. Policy allows a closing admin to accede to deletion requests for marginally notable people if they are only barely notable. That is how I read this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Biondo[edit]

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

The subject of this article has requested via OTRS Ticket that this article be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: It's not clear to me that the subject is sufficiently non-notable for her request to carry any weight. I would also like to note that the G7 template on the article at the moment is inapplicable since the article has multiple authors. It should be removed. --N Y Kevin 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep-She does have a little notability it seems. Though on the other hand-too soon? Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she's requested deletion, I don't see why it shouldn't be granted. Her notability is marginal at best with the main claim being that she has a Guinness record and I don't know of any notability criteria that says that grants automatic notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability's there: [1][2][3][4][5][6] - I don't mean to sound like a dick but If you don't want attention you don't enter yourself in to the Guinness Book of Records, Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again, Personally I don't see the point in deleting this. –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE "Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again," Well, there's speedy G4. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She is a bit of a one-trick pony, but there are sufficient resources about her, IMO. I don't believe that subjects of articles can have those articles removed unless there is some compelling legal reason to do so. LaMona (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is non-notable enough to defer to her wish not to have an article here. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (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.