Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruma Goldman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. -- Longhair\talk 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fruma Goldman

Fruma Goldman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An anon placed an AfD tag, but was presumably unable to create the discussion page. The AfD tag was removed, and another editor placed a speedy deletion tag, which I contested as the article does seem to assert notability. However, it is unreferenced, possibly a hoax, a BLP, and Google seems to have no mention of this person apart from a blog which was being used as a reference. Canley (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being unreferenced for this long is a strong suggestion that reliable sources don't exist. A Gsearch for "Fruma Goldman" turned up nothing useful, and a Google News search for the same was empty. Fails WP:V. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for verifiability. Smells like a hoax. -- Y not? 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced biography with severe WP:BLP problems if the subject is a real person. This article was created by an anonymous user (back when that was still allowed) who had no other contributions except to this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Daughter of a billionaire mining magnate rabbi (who also doesn't appear in google)? Come on. RJC Talk 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a BLP violation, if nothing else. As a comment, I don't think that Google searches are suitable for Africa-related articles given the limited internet infrastructure in most countries, which includes newspapers in the more developed nations such as South Africa not necessarily having archives which are available online. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunatly the article was around for two years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it's not a BLP violation, then its... well, it's a BLP violation, innit? Lankiveil (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (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.