Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Mary Nicol

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Mary Nicol[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is well sourced, but badly written, at least it should be draftified. Additionally I would raise serious questions about the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. That is the national dictionary and that makes her automatically notable. As for cleanup, WP:AFD is not cleanup. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly notable based just on the sources already in the article. If nom dislikes the current version the solution is ordinary editing. As my colleague scope creep very rightly notes, AFD is not cleanup.Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG/WP:BIO - any cleanup issues should be tagged rather then pushed to possible get forgotten in draft. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prose is indeed awful, unencyclopedic, and at times nonsensical, but there is a presumption of notability afforded by ANYBIO so the solution here is to fix through editing rather than deletion.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I encourage @RogerNotable to withdraw this nomination. Since you are a new editor, I encourage you to try improve the article. Working on content is important for getting a good grasp of when to make an AfD nomination or instead work on improving an article. As others have noted, AfD is only to discuss the notability of an article, not cleanup issues. If you do decide to work on this article, I'd be happy to review your work when you are done; just leave a note on my talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (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.