Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Crowley


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Bridget Mary Crowley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable non-combatant in Irish Civil War/War of Independence. I have raised (and re-raised) concerns with this article's author (who has seen other similar submissions deleted recently on similar grounds), but in short this: That we are relying *entirely* on primary and family sources makes it very clear that WP:GNG is NOT met. By some distance. Guliolopez (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is effectively a "family history" piece, republished as a Wikipedia article. Problematic under WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and related guidelines.
 * Content is a near verbatim copy/paste from the subject's military pension application record from the Irish Military Archives. The pensions department received 100s of thousands of such submissions. And issued nearly 70,000 pensions to people who were involved in these conflicts. Not only are not all of the subject's not automatically notable, but the content of these records is not automatically appropriate for republication here. Not least because those records are copyrighted. Problematic under WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:COPYVIO guidelines.
 * Subject is not notable. Bridget Mary Crowley was one of 10s of thousands of members of Cumann na mBan. And one of 100s of thousands of people (on "both sides") involved in the Irish War of Independence and Irish Civil War. There is nothing to indicate that this person meets WP:MILPERSON or WP:NBIO or any other notability guideline.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - Spleodrach (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This violates the primcipals of Wikipedia not being a memorial site.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment At one time I was so sick of Wikipedia's presentist bias that I resoilved to not vote to delete any biographies of dead people. However it is articles like this on people without even a shred of notability that have shown to me all parts of Wikipedia need creation monitoring and pruning. Of course I do not think anything is worse than the glut of articles on names that were randomly dropped in the Silmarillion. All the more so because that book probably should never have been published, it was never anywhere near ready to go to press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2019 (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.