Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Madden

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Madden

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article by DAWN, Educationist: A modern day hero is published by them in their magazine, which they received from Notre Dam school graduates. Störm (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered amply as a foreign educationist working in Pakistan; see eg. [1] [2] [3] [4] Mar4ed (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to give independent sources, not affiliated or COI ones. Also, read the note above for your DAWN source. Störm (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no problem over the probable accuracy, but I do not think she is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Is not mentioned at all in the mainstream media. Seems to only be covered in closely related sources. Fails WP:GNG. Kb.au (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2018 (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.