Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Mitchell-Quill

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. RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mitchell-Quill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as well as the two articles on the parents. A daughter-published through self-published memoir of your spouse does not make three people notable, and it this case makes absolutely no one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  happily ordinary. Bearian (talk
  )
• Delete No evidence of notability, and as outlined above, this is yet another example of the article creator using Wikipedia to publish their family history. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Studied over a couple of days, and no real evidence of notability, in fact little solid evidence of anything. Claims in the edit history of personally-held material may be true, and some screenshots, etc., provided, but the editor, if they'd studied the policies at all, would know that this won't do - it might help with a couple of detail points if the basics were solid, but does not move the needle on proof of notability.SeoR (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2019 (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.