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 boldly moved to draft space: Draft:Florence Mary Bird. The draft will remain there until it is improved and submitted for review through the usual channels, or until is deleted for lack of improvement. bd2412 T 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Mary Bird (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)

written like a resume/advert, dubious notability FASTILY 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Being well written doesn't mean that its spam.

"Mythological Portrait of Mothra" does it for me. Tony OU812 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm just not seeing any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is amazing, really well presented and reads well. However there are almost no reliable sources and it has clearly was made by a close person. Dysklyver 13:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since a lot of work obviously went into this, it's worth reiterating WP has a policy on when to create separate articles: when the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The above editors are saying that the article lacks reliable, secondary sources. As written, I agree czar 05:20, 7 October 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.