Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maud Galt


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Maud Galt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a person with no real claim of encyclopedic notability besides having existed. The only sources here are glancing namechecks of her existence in two books that aren't about her beyond mentioning her name on one page each, which is not enough sourcing to claim that she gets over WP:GNG -- we require substantive sources about her, not just brief one-line acknowledgements that she existed, before a Wikipedia article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep For me, the amount of detail available for this person doesn't chime with assertions that the sources are not substantive. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of this article is both relevant to the history of LGBT persons in Scotland and to the history of women in Scotland. The level of detail in this article indicates that there are further sources to be uncovered and it should therefore be treated as a work in progress. Delphine Dallison (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having just evaluated the article, I believe it pass muster now (it was somewhat shaky earlier). Given the scarcity of literacy in the time discussed, the fact is that there is enough information for two paragraphs (which is far more substantive and significant than a single line) is quite remarkable; in reliable, peer-reviewed, independent sources, too. In short, I think this article passes WP:GNG. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Even at the time of nomination the claims of "glancing namechecks" and "one-line acknowledgements" were not accurate and the article has since been improved. The coverage is significant and warrants an article. Thincat (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Even at the time of nomination", the only sources present in the article at all were two books in which the subject's name appeared one time on one page, supporting nothing that would have constituted a notability claim in its own right except "person who existed". I acknowledge that additional sources have now been added that change the equation, but the sources present at the time of nomination were evaluated correctly. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.