Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Cattanach


 * 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   speedy keep per WP:IAR. The only issue here is copyright and the original G12 tagger says that's no longer a problem. This is almost the same as a withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen Cattanach

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

Nominator is creator of the page. Page was tagged for copyright violations at 23:55, 19 June 2009. Page rewritten and edited to ensure compliance. However the speedy delete tag remains. Request for assistance at WP:ANI produced no response or result whatever, although User:Gwen Gale questioned the page in re WP:BIO. So page is submitted for review re both copyright compliance and notability as per ''"CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."'' Respectfully submitted, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding notability, she is the subject of a portrait at the National Portrait Gallery . Other than that, cannot find anything beyond the article. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Almost certainly notable, per rank/position, awards, and portrait at National Portrait Gallery. Don't see any significant copyright problems in current version, and any residual concerns should be easily fixable. Hqb (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable based on status from career and rank. Internet searches are not a good way to judge her significance do to the timing of her service. More information will be available with more in depth research. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Companion of the Order of the Bath, picture in the National Portrait Gallery and a senior position in British Army nursing.  OK she didn't guest star in the Simpsons or play baseball but she's notable all the same. Nick mallory (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's highly unusual to nominate your own page, particularly with the goal of avoiding deletion. AfD means articles for deletion, not articles for discussion.... copyright issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is already a discussion there, admins will check the discussion before deleting. Hairhorn (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per FloNight. No opinion on whether there are any copyright issues which I have not had the time to look into. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Copyvio should be ok now. That aside, I'm not sure why the creator chose to nominate it here. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like author is trying to head off another editor doing this. This debate about copyvio should be elsewhere.  Fuzbaby (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was tagged for Speedy deletion, so the user brought the article here for discussion. In addition to copyright concerns, concerns about notability were raised. An Afd seems appropriate under these circumstances. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - More sources can surely be found, for example a QARANC history by Juliet Piggott, published as a book at ISBN 0850521939, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (Famous Regiments Series). The book came out in 1975 and can still be ordered from UK Amazon. I checked whether, as a WWII brigadier, she would qualify under WP:MILHIST's notability guide, but I don't think it's automatic. I could not find an obituary in the Times of London but it could still exist. A search for QARANC at the British Library gets five hits, including two books that might mention her. The Library had no relevant hits on 'Helen Cattanach' as such. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, her rank surely proves notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as long as the copyright problems have been taken care of and I assume they have. She is notable and the article should be kept. WTucker (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (as nominator of original speedy). Looks like the copyvio problems have been dealt with. It would probably have been better to start the article off as a stub and then improve, rather than start as a copy and try and change it from there (it would also avoid the attentions of new pages patrollers)! Quantpole (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (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.