Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Stuart (Quaker)


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jane Stuart (Quaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not notable. It fails WP:NPEOPLE. Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ riley  (  talk  ) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ riley  (  talk  ) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ riley  (  talk  ) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sources still being added to the article
 * Keep Article could use improvement, but Stuart easily passes NPEOPLE, e.g. Wisbech Standard, BHO. Her legend is recounted at length in this online book (of which a free ebook is available.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be reasonable decent historical article with sufficient sourcing.  scope_creep Talk  09:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am working on cleaning up the article. I already removed a link to an article that only loosely connected to her.Will vote when finished. Leaning keep.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability:People. My major edits are complete, though I may play around with it further, as there seem to be more sources available. I found a surprising level of detail on her life considering it has all come about from oral histories. The article now focuses on facts of her life rather than their provenance. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (I already voted Keep above.) The article is now in better shape thanks to  but AfD is not cleanup. The bio subject clearly passes GNG. I suggest a speedy close rather than waiting for more SNOW to fall. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 24 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.