Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Boyle


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Boyle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A Prod tag was added to the article, and there was discussion at Talk:Margaret Boyle, but the tag was removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article describes no significant contributions to mathematics (or anything else), so WP:PROF is out of reach, and we have to go by WP:GNG. There are what appear to be two actual sources (not counting the obituary of her son that doesn't even use her name) but both are published by St Andrews so they are not independent, and I was unable to find Boyle in the "brief history of women at St Andrews" source. So we have no statement of significance, one non-independent in-depth source, and no independent reliable in-depth sources. This could almost be an A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not able to see a way to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG after some searching. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF.  For GNG: I normally would expect individuals covered by MacTutor to be notable, but there's little in the MacTutor article as to why she might be notable, and I did not find any evidence on a search.  I keep in mind that it might be harder to find sources on subjects that were active ~100 years ago, but I think we need more than is apparent here.  Watching this discussion in case better evidence of notability somehow arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete outright. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2023 (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.