Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Carter Lott

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Carter Lott[edit]

Contest PROD. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual. Several types of searches revealed nothing more than trivial coverage, at least as far as I could find (and I freely admit that I am not the world's best searcher) The PROD was contested with the edit summary "RSPB council = notability" by the original creator. I then went to the user's talk page to ask them to explain what that meant and/or help me understand why they felt that it shouldn't be deleted, but that was unsuccessful. I therefore feel that I have put forth a reasonable effort to unearth notability and have come up empty-handed, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Cheers, CP 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Having a place on the managing council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the largest conservation organisation in the world, with more members than the three main UK political parties combined, grants inherent notability. That references to her are in print rather than on-line, and not yet converted to Wikipedia references, does not change that; the whole concept of stubs exists for such cases. For the record, I answered every question put to me on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean "having had" a place? She's no longer there.[1] MikeHobday (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One doesn't loose notability by resigning a notable position. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone were notable per wp:bio, they should get significant ghits if they were English in 2009.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The raw number of Google hits (which is what I resume you mean) is not a criterion for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Number"? there aren't any. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former membership of RSPB council does not convey individual notability. Coupled with absence of absence of reliable sources per CP. MikeHobday (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MikeHobday Decltype (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.