Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Cribb

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. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Cribb

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

WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CelenaSkaggs, AfD's require a rationale, and 'WP:BIO' is not a rationale. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at what is online about her, I get the impression that she easily passes WP:GNG. Schwede 66 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG, though the article needs cleanup. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 21 September 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.