Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McWilliams

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McWilliams

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

Not factual and not notable enough for a Wikipedia article TTFTAKM (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it extremely important that Wikipedia is as factual as possible. Kate McWilliams was indeed known as the youngest commercial airline captain ever (and she is indeed a commercial airline captain), however, this was a PR stunt by easyjet and was relayed to the media by the airline and she is, in fact, not the youngest. The media did not do any fact checking and took the airline's word for it. In fact, most of the referenced articles that are used on this Wikipedia page use quotation marks (ie quoting easyJet) so they do not have to do the fact checking. The references to the fact she is not the youngest include other examples of younger captains, both male and female, who are of more note than Kate McWilliams. So therefore, I believe that this article should be deleted for two reasons. 1) it is not factually correct and 2) it is insignificant to have an article written about it.TTFTAKM (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because while the fact that she was once a youngest commercial captain would have made her notable, other sources point to the truth that that was not really the case. Wikipedia is not a news/gossip platform or a forum to discuss such insignificant theories. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if Wikipedia had a place for news, the false reporting would disqualify her in my opinion. Clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EasyJet, a one-liner would work. Always nice to see more women in STEM fields. SST flyer 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I agree the article is inaccurate but she has had a lot of coverage on her article (8 International news sources) so she more than passes WP:GNG.JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would point out that it is a false article. Wikipedia should not have false articles on it, neither merged with another article or rewritten. Everyone who makes the news, even briefly (she made the news for a couple of weeks maybe) would have an article then. TTFTAKM (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sure this person has achieved quite a bit in their life to date and there are a number of sources covering this but they are all mostly about the same thing and it hardly seems to be significant coverage (hence WP:BLP1E). No evidence of lasting notability that I can see. Consider if this article were still in existence in ten years time (assuming Wikipedia is too for that matter), will she have continued to received coverage in WP:RS over that period sufficient to allow the biography to be complete and up to date? I'm speculating of cse but unless she was to do *something* else of note in that time (as opposed to just carrying on living a normal life, with normal career and personal achievements etc.) then the answer would very likely be no. Ultimately then, like many people, the subject is probably just a normal person who has briefly come to the attention of a bloated and over-resourced media which reports nearly anything over and over again just to fill space (or local content rules), and that is likely to be all. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2016 (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.