Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Tasman Brower

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. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Tasman Brower

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

I believe this to be a non-notable person. While she certainly seems to have accomplished a lot over the years (establishing school athletics programs, starting a local swim club and theatre troupe, etc) - none of these things makes her notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Coverage in RS is largely limited to passing mentions and soft, local-interest news stories. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in my judgment. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "merit" comes from significant coverage in reliable sources, not the accomplishments. As such, subject fails WP:GNG. There is coverage, but all local and nothing that would satisfy significant coverage. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage appears to be very local, and the accomplishments indicative of an estimable professional and civic life, but not of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I do note that the (Newark) Star Ledger might pass muster as a reliable source. But the only time it is used in the article (with respect to the subject of the article) is to document some local volunteer work. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 21 September 2015 (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.