Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Retallack

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Retallack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be about a non-notable person (per WP:GNG/WP:BIO). The references given don't appear to be in-depth about Retallack (mostly passing mentions), and a quick search for sources online doesn't appear to bring anything up. A lot of the content itself is unsourced, and the article appears to have been written by Retallack's spouse (Gregory Retallack/@Retallack - Gregory's article lists "Diane" as his wife, and see all the COI discussion at the talk there) - I know that's not a reason to delete by itself, but just felt it was important to point it out. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: PINGing @Retallack to ask if they would like to leave their views on this deletion discussion, as they keep editing the article, but haven't left their thoughts here yet. Seagull123 Φ 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Hello Seagull123 / i think right now they've Improved the Article and Provided Enough Resources. According to What Provided The Person Has notability I think now we have to Remove The Deletion? Thank you. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakura emad: I still don't think that the improvements made to the article since I nominated it for deletion are enough to address the notability concerns. The references still appear to not actually be in-depth sources about Retallack, which in my understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, is what would be needed to show she's notable, so for that reason, I won't be withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Seagull123 Φ 19:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as shown by WP:BEFORE and sources cited in the article are not RSs. Luciapop (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (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.