Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Gloag

: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 Speedy keep, AFD started by banned user, someone else can restart one if they want. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Helen Gloag]]=

:{{la|Helen Gloag}} ([{{fullurl:Helen Gloag|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Gloag}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Questionable notability, questionable sources. We learn that she was a member of a Moroccan harem. Not much else. [http://www.perthshirediary.com/html/day0129.html] [http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/ghi/helengloag.html] Wutwatwot (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep sources availalbe on Google Books such as this one [http://books.google.com/books?id=mx2WY17Zd9YC&pg=RA2-PA182&dq=Helen+Gloag] ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that it looks like an extravagant claim for one sentence, but a quick search on Google suggests this is accurate. A properly referenced article would be better, but it's nothing that editing can't fix. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete for lack of evidence of notability, lack of sources, and lack of content. The article is one (unsourced) sentence; If what it asserts is true, then notability would arguably be met, but there would still be source and content problems. Just too many problems here.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Chris Neville-Smith and ChildofMidnight. There seems to be enough print sources to verify this information. The article could be expanded into a decent stub. freshacconci talktalk 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as article is now properly expanded and sourced per WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.