Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Thiers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
AFD |
m Listing on WP:DELSORT under People |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per [[WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes]]. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either ''find sources'' or ''merge sourced material'' to deal with the indisputable [[WP:GNG]] failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per [[WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes]]. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either ''find sources'' or ''merge sourced material'' to deal with the indisputable [[WP:GNG]] failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete as nom''' 11-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable OHB, an article about the 19th Amendment not related to the subject, and a U of WI family archive (primary source?) insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 12/2007. Article may be interesting but, if so, notability should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete as nom''' 11-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable OHB, an article about the 19th Amendment not related to the subject, and a U of WI family archive (primary source?) insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 12/2007. Article may be interesting but, if so, notability should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Jclemens-public|Jclemens-public]] ([[User talk:Jclemens-public|talk]]) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Revision as of 07:10, 5 December 2010
Louisa Thiers
- Louisa Thiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as nom 11-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable OHB, an article about the 19th Amendment not related to the subject, and a U of WI family archive (primary source?) insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack already tagged in article since 12/2007. Article may be interesting but, if so, notability should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. JJB 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)