Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Doherty

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only seems to have passing, three-sentence at most mentions in occasional articles. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NBIO and WP:GNG are not met. Effectively all of the coverage (in the article and that I can find) is of statements by the subject. Rather than about the subject. To the extent that the subject is mostly only mentioned in passing in the sources within the article. I also note that the WP:BLP bar (already a high bar) is even higher for articles about children. While this higher bar perhaps no longer applies, even a biographical article about an adult would require reliable/verifiable sources for the text about the subject's date-of-birth, role with ISSU, planned participation in a 2021 European Youth Parliament event, etc. There are no sources AT ALL for this text. Nor can I find any publicly available material about it. To the extent that I cannot fathom what the author was relying upon for these statements. (I also note that the author added several inline references in places where the sources do not mention the subject or otherwise support the text - suggesting that the author appears to have been relying on first-hand knowledge rather than what's actually in the sources...) Anyway, absent actual/verifiable/reliable/biographical sources (of which the subject is a primary topic), I cannot recommend anything other than deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 19 November 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.