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. While the article as it stood when nominated may have failed WP:GNG at face value, the current version clearly passes all notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Horsburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG, no significant coverage of subject. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete working for the BBC to produce web-content is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not be silly. Being a sport world champion certainly is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced fanpage with no convincing claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted there is nothing to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Do WP:BEFORE, properly. Anyone who !voted to delete this should recuse from AfD until they figure out how it actually works. It took less than ten seconds to find sufficient sourcing to prove notability, and the article already had enough before I did so, including RS for being a world champion! It took a few hours to completely overhaul the article, but worth the effort. This is not just a national champion in a sport (snooker), but a world champion in another (eightball pool), as well as a world champion runner-up in both snooker and English billiards. Not only that, she beat the eight-time reigning world champion for the world pool title, and the woman who would become the ten-time, record-breaking world champion after her for the national snooker one. Utterly remarkable for a non-full-time player. It's like being thrown into a cage with a tiger and a lion, armed with a pocket knife and emerging with two pelts and no serious wounds. PS: the national snooker victory came after she'd already give up pro snooker aspirations for pool. She won it as a afterthought, and just blew off the world championship because it didn't fit her BBC work schedule, despite having made it to the semi-finals last time. Badass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: UK Ladies champion, as stated in the original source, and now seriously expanded to demonstrate unquestionable notability. PamD 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-sourced and passes WP:GNG by miles: not even remotely borderline. I have to wonder if the three offhand delete votes above are even reading the same article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did not see the article before it was expanded, but this is yet another case of WP:BEFORE. Now it passes WP:GNG by a country mile. Edwardx (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sourcing. Am I the only one who notices the irony that Wikipedia is littered with one-line drive-by stubs, but a little starter well-done like this one gets slapped with AFD? — Maile (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Done the search and sources are out there. Pass nobility criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 19 January 2018 (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.