Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice E Ortom

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 delete. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion, with a recommendation to request protection at WP:RFPP afterwards Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice E Ortom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a case of inherited notability, fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to userspace, possibly in an effort to evade deletion. It is not a valid userpage and this Afd should continue. There are a handful of usergenerated pages on her but she utterly fails notability, as nominated. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Eunice Ortom and Eunice E. Ortom have both been serially recreated and salted. Do we need an Afd? Not sure. I will see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that I indefblocked the creator per WP:NOTTHERE: all of their contribution has already been deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: thanks. But this nominated article is of course also their contribution -- and not yet deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It will be deleted anyway, and if I speedy it now, some of my friends would call it AfD disruption and hold it against me. It happened in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, none of the previous versions have apparently gone thru Afd so this is a good idea, I guess. Thank you as always for your help. I'll just add a bolded salt to my !vote, for the closing admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband and protect redirect from expansion. The bio shows no notability independent of her husband, who currently appears to have two articles (which should be merged). I think he probably IS notable, but that does not make his wife notable: NOTINHERITED. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2017 (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.