Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons


 * 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. Wizardman 13:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. The article is a copy&paste of Fitzsimmons' biography given in its first source, p. 79 (which is in the public domain, so it's not a copyvio; it's not independent of her, though). No secondary sources given (the other given source does not mention Fitzsimmons). There are a few Google News hits, but none seem to provide non-trivial coverage. If sufficient sources are found to keep the article, it should be moved: The subject is Carolyn Beth Fitzsimmons, not Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons. Huon (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both google news, books and scholar turn up no results relating to or from her. I would say she fails human notability criteria, if people decide against deleting it, I think it should Move to Carolyn Beth Fitzsimmons because thats what the poster says is the person's actual name. Atyndall93 | talk 12:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - her name is Beth Duston Fitzsimmons (not Dustan) according the relevant government link - Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - according to the source given in the article, it's C. Beth Fitzsimmons. See the list of commissioners on p. 3 or her signature on p. 7. Huon (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - simply not enough reliable source interest to write a verifiable article. All of the news interest seems related to her appointment to NCLIS. The company she is credited in her BIO as starting is listed on the web has having one employee....I presume herself - Peripitus (Talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This page should not be up for deletion. I corrected the spelling for the middle name, and prior evaluations were based on the misspelled name. Please see this page for researching Dr. Fitzsimmons: http://www.nclis.gov/about/fitzsimmons.html The preceding entry was added by Mrtoes at Articles for deletion/Beth Duston Fitzsimmons. Copied here by Huon (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe the subject fails human notability criteria. Her listing within the NCLIS article would seem to be more than sufficient.  If any other facts abut her are relevant, then perhaps that is where they should go.  In fact this AfD throws the spotlight on to the other people listed as former chairpersons in the NCLIS article, namely Martha B. Gould and Joan R. Challinor.  All the articles lack citations and secondary references, and do not seem to meet human notability criteria.  It appears that they were, coincidentally, all created by a former deputy director at the NCLIS who is currently working on her autobiography at Judith C. Russell as well as creating a similarly unreferenced article about a former post that she held as Superintendent of Documents which is of highly questionable notability and is uncategorised.  I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure where the correct place is, to draw attention to this sort of thing (all advice is welcome), but it seemed to me to have some relevance to this discussion.  It raises the question of conflict of interest as it's obvious that people and things seem much more notable when you have a connection with them.  As a neutral observer, they don't seem to me, to meet the notability guidelines for biographical articles at all.Austin46 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Also, not notable due to lack of coverage that does not overlap with coverage in the NCLIS article--Finalnight (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2008 (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.