Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maude Farris-Luse: 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]] 05:38, 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''' 10-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable GRG (2), primary-source SSDI, and one 26-sentence CBS article that does not support some of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Notability of one-source one-event bio should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete as nom''' 10-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable GRG (2), primary-source SSDI, and one 26-sentence CBS article that does not support some of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Notability of one-source one-event bio should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. [[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
Maude Farris-Luse
- Maude Farris-Luse (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 10-sentence article mostly about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN with some nonnotable bio material. Sources are unreliable GRG (2), primary-source SSDI, and one 26-sentence CBS article that does not support some of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members, with "citation needed" already in article) and is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Notability of one-source one-event bio should be demonstrated by a plurality of reliable secondary sources. 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)