Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maud Mitchell

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. RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Mitchell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable author. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If doubt persists, I would suggest moving it to draft. Incubate in draftspace. Not logged in.

Notable author. Book stored in national library and used by historians in other works. Housing development named after her in homeplace. Meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.99.253 (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main potential claims to notability seem to be WP:MILPERSON (based on subject's membership of IRA and C na mB), WP:AUTHOR (based on subject's book) or WP:GNG (based on general coverage of the subject). In terms of MILPERSON there is no evidence that the subject held a rank or received any award to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of other people who participated in the War of Independence. In terms of NAUTHOR, a single family-memoir publication does not meet the expectations of the guideline. And, in terms of GNG, there just doesn't seem to be enough coverage to establish notability (a single passing mention in a real-estate advertorial piece falls short of SIGCOV by some distance). That we are relying on a user-generated genealogical website to support the content would seem to reinforce the lack of significant coverage to support the content. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (The author might also do well to heed the notes from several editors about not using Wikipedia as a free web-host for content better suited to a family history blog or to ancestry.com. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Giuliolopez and nom. Author fails to meet notability guidelines and sadly only gets a passing mention to the book in a footnote the Peter Hart IRA book. Pilaz (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her book has no reviews that I can find, and she herself hasn't received any media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationale. Utopes (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Spleodrach (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. This page appears to be one of a string of memorials for someone's family members. Even though she's deceased, the allegation that the subject was the member of a criminal organization makes me especially wary. There's no evidence that she was at notable for any reason. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. The subject, on its face, was an ordinary person. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2019 (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.