Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Gilmer


 * 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. Uncontested, consensus is that Jane does not meet the notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jane Gilmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Three editors tagged thgis as A7 under CSD. The only refs show that she exists and has a role as a teacher and that she has written a book. Nothing indicating any notability has been produced and searches do not show anything. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 20:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The references actually show even less than what Velella says. One reference shows that she has a job as a teacher, and the other shows that she wrote a one-sentence comment about a book, not that she wrote the book itself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a single independent source, and nothing in the article or anywhere else to indicate any notability. In my opinion the speedy deletion nominations were correct, but since an administrator has decided to decline the speedy deletion, we will see how this discussion goes. (Incidentally, no reason was given for declining the speedy deletion nomination, unless you count "has sources" as a reason, but since "no sources" was not the reason given for the nomination that is irrelevant.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as by far still nothing minimally convincing of any basic notability, there's information and sources here but still not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  18:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to meet requirements of wp:gng. Search for significant coverage in reliable sources results in negative findings.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:47, 16 June 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.