Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Hadlow

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

[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)

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]

Weak delete first female RAF flight instructor seems the only very tenuous basis for notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jo Salter - if she was the RAF's first female aviator she would be no-question notable and someone to put up on a pedestal as an encouragement to others, but she isn't. First female flight instructor is praiseworthy but doesn't land notability by itself - and the rest of the article and sources don't demonstrate passing GNG, NPERSON, or SOLDIER. However, she was classmates with the RAF's first female pilot, Jo Salter, and is - appropriately - mentioned as such in Salter's article, so we have a reasonable redirect target available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RAF's first female QFI is most certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The RAF's first female pilot, yes. The first female instructor? I'm not so sure. At a certain point you have to draw the line when it comes to "first X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage found to establish GNG. I don't love the idea of redirecting articles on people to other people rather tangentially connected, but won't lose sleep if that's the outcome Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 17 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.