Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibyll kalff
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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sibyll kalff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Prod deleted with no improvements so AFD made: the document looks like a resume, number of irrelevant links with no relevant sourcing. notability highly in question and the quality is very much lacking. decide for your self Rmzadeh ► 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No indication of notability. Websites exist, but they appear to be primary sources. Only one article on google news from the Tehran Times? Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability indicated, although I appreciate the minutiae listed in her resume. There are no references given; I doubt this could saved. What's that rule again about articles with lower-case surnames in the title? freshacconci talktalk 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete: Having removed they copyvio resume[1], there's nothing left to show notability meets WP:SPEEDY#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). --JD554 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Letting the AfD close will allow easier speedy deletion in the event the same article is recreated later. As it stands now, some admins might decline speedy under A7 (despite the lack of any claim of notability). Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the AfD was closed as a speedy delete it could still be used for a speedy G4 if recreated. That said, with the latest changes I believe that it now fails for an A7 as notability has been asserted, but I still vote delete as it hasn't been established. --JD554 (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Letting the AfD close will allow easier speedy deletion in the event the same article is recreated later. As it stands now, some admins might decline speedy under A7 (despite the lack of any claim of notability). Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (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.