Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Skeete: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
John J. Bulten (talk | contribs)
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]] 05:38, 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]] 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Delete as nom''' 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Delete as nom''' 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:38, 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]]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 07:11, 5 December 2010

Margaret Skeete

Margaret Skeete (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 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). JJB 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]