Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Shear

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, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miriam Shear

Miriam Shear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Two newer users have expressed concerns over the notability of this article's subject. These users are unfamiliar with how to file an AfD, so I am doing it on their behalf. Italiavivi 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator recommends keep. Italiavivi 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sourced reliably and passes WP:BIO. Only possible question is whether the article is sufficiently concerned with the person rather than the incident in which she was allegedly involved. If the incident, then the article should be renamed. Dekimasuが... 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - multiple independent coverage by third-party sources (news reports) demonstrates notability per WP:BIO. Good referencing and external links. Walton monarchist89 16:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a case of prejudgment. If Miriam Shear lied she is getting an entry she doesn't deserve. Also it is being hijacked by only one opinion other than mine. When deletion has occurred for their side it was allowed by them but if by me it was labeled always as vandalism. I had to push for the little input I could. I say drop the article. yisraelasper
• Keep we cannot consider deletions just because somebody does not like the content of an article, and in this case it is properly referenced and verifiable though I don't know if it is really of interest to an encyclopedia Alf photoman 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete total POV, full of lies. Article is constantly being hijacked by Italiavivi who has a very non-NPOV agenda. The fact that an article is written about a person in a newspaper does not say anything about the notability of that person. We don't have articles about every person who claims to have been the victim of a supposed crime. The article fits all guidelines for deletion. --GivatShaul 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:GivatShaul is the 5th suspected sockpuppet of banned user Daniel575. Italiavivi 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't affect the argument especially with an online encyclopedia. The article on Miriam Shear would not have been put in any other encyclopedia. The rules were meant to enhance Wikipedia's reliability not to become an end to itself. yisraelasper

• • Sockpuppet? What? --GivatShaul 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep The incident is notable as expressing a well-known source of controversy, the continuing opposition of the Haredi community to women praying at that site. The only question concerns BLP, whether the article should be renamed. It would be good to have evidence that she does not oppose publicity. DGG 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? Women praying at what site??? Now what is this?? --GivatShaul 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is called nonsense. Women pray at that site. yisraelasper
• Keep Sources demonstrate notability from incident. --Oakshade 05:22, 21 February 2007 (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.