Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Lloyd-Jones


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Antonia Lloyd-Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

there is no independent notability other than translating some books. all of the citations are either social media profiles or tabloid journalism Wasabi,the,one (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable translator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are still no substantial and major publications and the only library holdings there are, as tertiary author, that's not convincing for establishing her own article, let alone with convincing substance. SwisterTwister   talk  00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. a translator can be notable, but there is no evidence this particular translator is . DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being associated with a bunch of notable institutions as well as notable works isn't the same thing as having personal notability. A biographical page requires significant reliable source coverage to make the actual 'meat' of the article, after all, and that just doesn't exist here. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:PROMO and for lack of sufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.