Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jillian Garvey

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) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Garvey

[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)

Jillian Gravey isn't notable for any event nor scientific discovery, if you google her name you will find 4 news articles, in which she's briefly mentioned in 3 and the other being an article about her research on the ancient Aboriginal practices, but still nothing special and definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC, of all 37 sources used in her article only two are secondary, the first one is a video that gives you an error when you try to play it and the other describes the discovery of a tooth of a Diprotodon that Garvey and her team discovered. SadAttorney613 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Archaeology, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excellent to see a nom with proper BEFORE. I can't see how Garvey passes WP:PROF (not a named chair; not a recipient of significant awards or recognition). Google, Newsbank and WikiLibrary searches did find plenty of primary articles, but failed to find any WP:RS (eg a recipe on SBS Food; passing mention in The Age as the supervisor of a story's subject; etc), so fails WP:GNG. Certainly she has potential in time but currently this is WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in her article are mainly primary. She doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, primary sources + nothing else to give notability Chaddude (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2022 (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.