Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Dull


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Gladys Dull

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Completing process for another user Edgepedia (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason given by Nom Reason: First of all, while I am an inclusionist rather than deletionist (although as an exopedian, I do not really bother too much about these labels) it might seem strange that I should nominate something for deletion. However, as I note on the talk page at Gladys Dull, I worry about the accuracy of this article. Please let me know whether I have got something wrong here - this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied from talk page I think it important to let people know that this article is rather dubious, and while I am inclined to inclusionism rather than deletionism, I might even call for its deletion. In the year 2000 - when, incidentally, I was first diagnosed with Type One diabetes - I wrote a letter to "Balance" (the bimonthly magazine of Diabetes UK) asking whether any diabetics had lived to beo one hundred. At least two people responded and said that they had known people who had lived to be 100 or even 102. This would make these diabetics longer-lived than the person; there may be a difference of their age at diagnosis, though. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No opinion completing an uncomplete nomination. Edgepedia (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not notable, and weak on verification. The article is not supported by multiple independent Reliable Sources as required for notability. The references provided at the article are not Reliable Sources. I could find only one published source, which is part of the "Marlowe Diabetes Library"; I don't think that's enough to qualify as multiple independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (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.