Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Loughran

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 of the debate was delete. Source, source? Mailer Diablo 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Loughran

listed by someone as nn-bio, not quite sure but it merits a vote-- – ugen64 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (my vote is Delete by the way - ugen64)

• Keep I can't see why article needs to be deleted. -- Librarianofages 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because creating articles about subjects insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia damages Wikipedia's attempt at creating a reputable encyclopedia, which is its primary purpose. Bwithh 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She sounds notable to me. --TruthbringerToronto 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Needs sources and would like to know more as she doesn't sound terribly notable, but keep for now. SM247^{My Talk} 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only 136 unique Google hits, less than half to irrelevant sites, book has an astonishing sales rank of 335,252 on Amazon.co.uk. Not ranked at all on Amazon.com. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep if expanded. --DarkAudit 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Lots of the google hits are of the form "And at 2pm, we'll hear a presentation from..." I don't see evidence that she's "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field", etc. (WP:BIO).
• Delete as per Coredesat. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Coredesat. Not encyclopedically notable. -- GWO
• Delete per Coredesat. She needs to do more than "sound" notable at a casual five second glance of the article, she needs to be notable. Her organization's alleged "non-profit" website is full of e-commerce links [1] and has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,297,392, besides wobbling dramatically on their claimed membership numbers. RGTraynor 09:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep primarily on the basis of having co-written a book in her field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the book she has co-authored. [[2]] --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I find two news articles (one BBC, one Coventry Evening Telegraph) where she appears as an also-ran. No encyclopedia-worthy track record in her own right. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete head of barely notable organization and poorly selling book. JChap 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Burgwerworldz 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedically notable. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio; head of a somewhat minor organization for which neither she nor it has come to wide public or media notice. --MCB 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep upon the expansion of the article; if no expansion occurs, consider my vote changed to Delete hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the pivotal point is that it is unsourced so we cannot assume notability from the claims therein. I would have expected this AfD to bring forth sourcing if sources there be. BlueValour 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the numerous and valid reasons given above. Nuttah68 15:41, 8 July 2006 (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.