Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Batist

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. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Nakon 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Batist

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

I do not think that this meets the notability guidelines on living people. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Danielle Batist has contributed to some of the biggest UK national and international publications, as well as interviewing the Dalai Lama. I have tagged pages with less notability for deletion and the community has deemed they should remain. I argue that Batist's credits make her much more notable than many other journalist pages that appear on Wikipedia, and thus this page should be retained. --Journotracker (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) journotracker[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 1 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC (only passing mentions and quotes in sources), and the subject has not created or contributed significantly to a significant work that is featured in a independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. nor does the subject meet any other WP:JOURNALIST criteria. Esquivalience ^t 22:40, 6 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 03:46, 14 April 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.