| Revision as of 07:11, 5 December 2010 editJclemens-public (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,932 editsm Listing on WP:DELSORT under People← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:53, 6 December 2010 edit undoNeptune5000 (talk | contribs)6,397 edits →Margaret Skeete: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''Delete as nom''' 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). ] 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete as nom''' 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). ] 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. ] (]) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:53, 6 December 2010
Margaret Skeete
- Margaret Skeete (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 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Sources are an apparent mirror of WP or an unreliable source, and one 10-sentence LAX article that does not support most of the material in the WP article (unsourced research presumably by GRG members). 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)
- Delete The only source in the article is 10 sentences long, which is not substantial. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)