Talk:Clare Nancy Russell

Notability
Nominated this for speedy deletion (action which was described as 'patently invalid'--ouch), subsequently added a notability template. Accomplishments do not suggest significance, little is returned in Google searches, and unsure that relationships satisfy notability guidelines. 99.0.83.41 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed notability tag, as the commission of Lord Lieutenant appears to meet notability guidelines, and article links to this: . 99.0.83.41 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since removed templates placed by other editors; concerns appear to have been addressed. My thanks to those who supplied context and improved the article. 99.0.83.41 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (To 99.0.83.41) Well it was "patently invalid," but please understand that that has nothing to do with the merits of notability itself. CSD A7 is a very low bar. It requires only a mere "indication of importance or significance". Our notability standards themselves are not in the mix when we judge whether criterion A7 applies. Huge numbers of articles on non-notable topics are created with a sufficient "indication of importance or significance" to take them out of the ambit of the speedy deletion criterion, yet are still properly deleted after consideration on the merits at articles for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Between my lack of knowledge re: the commission of Lord Lieutenant and the dearth of information gleaned via Google searches, I thought this was a candidate for speedy deletion, and did not see even an indication of significance; however, I hesitated to proceed to AFD process because it seemed too reactionary under the circumstances--my experience is that administrators are often correct in these matters. Your explanation and contributions to the article are appreciated. 99.0.83.41 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)