Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaqueline Priestman
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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name misspelled as mentioned below and the subject's factuality is questionable. PJM 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; I thought it was a hoax too, but it turns out it's just a misspelling. [1] Peyna 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting; thanks for the link. PJM 04:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename to Jacqueline Priestman - its very interesting. Here are the links: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Of course, we could alternatively rename it to High Voltage Syndrome (I would have suggested a merge, but there is no such article). It is an interesting article. Expand a fair bit though, and consider the rename. Zordrac 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. per Zordac. (Notorious4life 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep and rename -- (Blue520 20:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep and rename. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that any Oxford professor had anything to say about her (though I'm sure some did and I'm sure it wasn't comlimentary). This is tinfoil hattery at its finest. Moreover, only seven Google hits for "Jacqueline Priestman" electricity, which says that even among those who have seen Elvis, she is not well-known. Denni ☯ 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable (I can find no evidence that supports the actual claims in the actual article, like the "oxford professor" stuff). An article on High Voltage Syndrome would be interesting, and I encourage someone to create it - but I don't think this is very useful as a starting point, as about 80% of it needs to be deleted anyway, which would leave the new article with one dubious sentence and a redirect from a misspelt name. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: note that we have only one source, since all Zordrac's links are copies of the exact same text. This source is a column in a single newspaper that is exclusively dedicated to repeating remarkable and unverifiable claims. I do not believe this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the verifiablity policy, so without other actual soruces, I'm not convinced that our official policies permit us to keep this material. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 2 December 2005 (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.
