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. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Tagged since June for multiple issues including WP:COI. Also has potential issues with WP:BIO, WP:WEB Tmore3 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At a quick glance she seems notable enough. However the article as it is is bad, as tagged. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the time comes, someone other than the subject of the article will create it DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems notable enough, but the article needs some clean up and needs sources, other than that it looks passable. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Forgot to mention a few things I noticed about the references which seemed to provide virtually no backup to most everything written. One reference is her own website another is nothing but a gallery of self published pics and two of them KARE-11 and Metromix I could find not a single mention of this person. The one article that actually had anything written about her (Minnesota Monthly) didn't seem to indicate any significance or notability she has gained in her field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article makes credible claims of notability for the subject. While WP:COI may be a genuine issue for an individual editor, there is no irrevocable taint for the information, which has since been updated by multiple editors. Article needs better sourcing and expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And where exactly are these "credible claims of notability" neutrally referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Minnesota Monthy shows she's notable. So its a keep per that and search 1, 2, and 3. Notability is there. Article simply needs a major overhaul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but one article that only goes so far as to expound on her favorite foods would not clarify a person's notability in the least WP:BIO - Basic Criteria, and neither does a series of self promotional links or her own interviews as seen in searches 1,2, and 3. WP:PRIMARY,WP:CREATIVE. If the credible secondary sources are there to support 99% of the article, go ahead and put them in. Otherwise this article's narcissistic tone and serious lack of reliable references have been given more than enough time to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (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.