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 keep. There is a tendency to dismiss sources for being WP:OSO. King of ♠ 09:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Clark[edit]

Ruth Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. PROD was removed with the comment that Clark meets point 2. of WP:AUTHOR "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." but the book is "Camp Fire Training for Girls" and I'm pretty sure there's nothing new in terms of concept, theory or technique about girls lighting campfires. -- HighKing++ 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To what end are you targeting Scouting and peripheral articles? Are you now going to put all of these up for deletion? What is the obsession for you?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke's rationale given nom's questionable timing, and because it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals point 2, namely that it was not singular, but rare enough 100 years ago, to have girls in on the whole outdoors movement.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference that is now on the woodcraft book, makes it clear that it is a significant book on woodcraft and not a book about lighting camp fires. I think this is now a clear keep. I will still add material from the book when it arrives. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears split on this article. -- Dane talk 08:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 08:06, 7 January 2017 (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.