Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa McDermott

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. ✗plicit 14:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa McDermott

[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)

WP:N SparklingSnail (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. SparklingSnail (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It would help if the person who raised this AFD actually stated some grounds for deletion, but they didn't, does that disqualify it? It may be that they are arguing that this person is not notable, I question this, note that there are several references. PatGallacher (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, the article isn't entirely clear what she did to be notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a bad RfD, but the article should still go. The bulk of the article's sources amount to little more than trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll grant that it would be nice if the nominator had provided more detail, but the article itself isn't actually claiming that she would meet any particular notability criterion and is referenced principally to glancing namechecks of her existence as a participant in events rather than substantive coverage about her as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2022 (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.