Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss

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. Singularity 08:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary DeMoss

Mary DeMoss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was a WP:BLP mess and a WP:COAT for Lisa McPherson. I rewrote it in conformance with WP:BLP but now I am not sure if it belongs. I can go either way (at least as far as this article is concerned) though I lean Delete am neutral following recent additions. Thanks for helping decide this one. JustaHulk (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I should clarify my position as weak delete and merge neutral following recent additions. I am no longer a big fan of using merge templates on little-trafficked but potentially controversial articles as you get little discussion (eg. Patter drill) but, likely objection if you then merge. I think it is better to run the AfD and merge from there. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. -- There is some notable sourced material here, so I say merge any relevant information to articles Lisa McPherson and Scientology controversy. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Weak keep - based on connections to CCHR and Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, assuming there is evidence that she is mentioned significantly in any of the sources. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Changing to "Weak keep", agree with Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
• Merge - Only notability seems to be attached to the Lisa McPherson thing. I'd say merge anything useful from this article with that one or scientology controversy. Elhector (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is NPOV and conforms to BLP. The subject is notable, although not greatly.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Newly added references round out the notability and make it less of a coatrack stub. AndroidCat (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, AC, that was good work on your part. I am almost ready to move to weak keep but this is a good one for the community to decide so I will stay neutral. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable, also plenty of refs. STORMTRACKER 94 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above, although it would be better if we could cite more than two different publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:51, 23 December 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.