Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maeve Gilmore

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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Maeve Gilmore

Maeve Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two-sentence biography of non-notable person. Nothing in article supports claim of notability. Dave
Please help!
17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• She is clearly notable, google search establishes that. This shouldn't go through this process disgracefully like her granddaughter Florence Peake. Flying Fische (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Flying Fische (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Guoguo12--Talk--  18:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • Yes, that is true, thanks for pointing it out! I am allowed an opinion too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011
• I'm inclined to Keep here or at least Merge to Mervyn Peake. Her novel generated coverage such as these from The Telegraph and The Guardian and there are other sources around that can add to the article.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that someone has now nominated this notable personfor @speedy deletion@? (and removed the AFD tag like you're not supposed to do?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011

The speedy issue has been dealt with. This article definitely does not qualify for A3 as tagged, and I see no other speedy criterion that this article might fall under. I also see no evidence that an AfD tag was removed; it was simply moved down because the much bigger speedy tag was placed on top. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning Keep if only because of the Titus Awakes angle. But it does need writing up. Fewer, better, articles, FF! Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - There are two reliable sources showing in the external links. This is a terrible stub and it needs much work, but even a cursory search of Google indicates that there is sufficient material out there in the long grass to do a proper job of it. Adding to this subject's cause is the fact that it's a biography of a person no longer living, which should be entitled to somewhat relaxed vigilance against hype, self-promotion, salesmanship, etc. Encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Carrite. Sources satisfy WP:GNG. Article needs improvement, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (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.