Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Hadlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 25 January 2021 (Dawn Hadlow: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Hadlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No significant independent coverage found in online search to satisfy WP:GNG. Only independent reference in article is a local newspaper story in which she is mentioned in passing and which is used to cite her husband's career. Military career does not meet requirements of WP:SOLDIER. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Necrothesp suggest you would think that "RAF's first female QFI" would be notable, but that does not seem to be the case. The hurdle is WP:BASIC "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article does not have those, nor could I find them. All the keep votes are presuming notability should exist, but there is no evidence that it does. Jeepday (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2021 (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.