Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander
for now. I quote from the oft-cited : "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial". There appear to be substantial sources that likely establish notability per . I agree that a future analysis of the sources may be appropriate and a lack of any further coverage could merit deletion. A #MEMORIAL argument seems silly to me, as it clearly indicates that |demonstrated notability trumps any "memorial" concerns. This article meets ''absolutely none'' of the |speedy deletion criteria, so those are poor quality recommendations in my opinion. &mdash
— User:Scientizzle, 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BIO||WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:CSD (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)