Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Kim Edmonds"

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Kim Edmonds"

Notability in question. I did a google search of the name with words like "British Columbia" and "Canadian" and "political" and got scant results, some of which didn't seem to refer to the Edmonds is question. Article doesn't justify her fame. Esprit15d 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not a person I'm aware of, and 20th-century Canadian social reformers are one of my areas of expertise. Doesn't Google at all, which is a bit suspicious for someone who supposedly had such "unparralled" influence. And I'm a bit hard-pressed to believe that someone with the given name "Kim" was born in 1892 (not that it's completely impossible, exactly — it's just unlikely.) Looks rather hoaxish to me, personally. Delete unless somebody can actually prove me wrong, though I won't hold my breath. Bearcat 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• A Kim born in 1892 seems possible (see Kim (novel), published in 1901), but otherwise delete per nom and Bearcat. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can dig up evidence to prove this is not a hoax. If not deleted, it certainly needs to be rewritten and brought up to Wikipedia's standards. - Axver 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn incog 01:14, 24 January 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.