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)

Ruth Mitchell-Quill

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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 WP:ANYBIO. Subject's potential claims to notability seem to be that she is a consultant medical professional, a professor, a company director, and/or a book publisher. In terms of the former (consultant doctor/psychiatrist), while we do not have a specific guideline for doctors, just being one (or even a "clinical director of mental health services") is not an automatic qualification for notability. (The source, for example, used to support the "consultant" claim lists two thousand other consultants in Ireland). In terms of being a professor, there are no sources offered to support this claim. (Nor can I find any to confirm that the subject was/is a professor or, if the subject was/is, that WP:NPROF is met). In terms of "company director of book publishing company", having looked at it, it seems pretty clear to me that the company in question was set-up solely to publish one book. A family memoir. A self-published book. There is no evidence that the publishing company did anything else. And certainly not to the extent that WP:SIGCOV is met. In short, and as with the main other "Mitchell-Quill" family articles created by the author, WP:NOTGENEALOGY almost certainly applies here. Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. There's no evidence that she was a full professor anywhere. A search online finds eight (not a typo) Ghits. Based on this entry the page appears to be a memorial for someone's grandmother. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. My late grandmother was a member of the Church of Ireland, but like this lady, she was 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)
• 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)

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.