Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Greenwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Yanksox 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maureen Greenwood

WP:BIO, author is SPA with axe to grind. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. She has testified before U.S. congressional committees, and the New York Times has published a letter of hers. I think that she is a notable activist. I tried to improve the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Effective pressure group activist it seems, but not notable. Emeraude 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the individual who suggested the removal of this page has an axe to grind. Looks like this woman is an activist and has done some great work over the years. Ner Israel
  • Keep This woman testify before U.S. congressional committees, she also received :The United Nations Association of the National Capital Area awarded Ms. Greenwood the "Human Rights Award" in December 2002". Mary Anne Wilson
    That's "The United Nations Association of the National Capital Area" - not the United Nations. Emeraude 10:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't fufill WP:BIO according to my interpretations, as well as precedents I have seen on AfD. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have found no established, reliable sources that can establish her notability. Yes, the New York Times may publish letters from everybody, but the writers themselves are (usually) non-notable. SunStar Net 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TT. Please refrain from incivil comments in AfD nominations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Low number of Ghits, but multiple testifying before Congress sways me. Open to a case that this is not as impressive as it seems. --Groggy Dice 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. as per Groggy, Truthbringer & the probable 'socks' acctually have half a point. while nominator may not have a specific axe to grind, we should wonder whether the argument for deletion is coasting along on the implication (i'm aware it isn't made explicit) that this person is some sort of 'trouble maker': a similarly 'minor' but innocuous person such as tv personality might well be oked. also bearing in mind there is no need to limit the number of entries as per WP:NOT (also the 'u n' thing needs editing to make Emeraude's point explicit) Bsnowball 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems accurate, and no known benefit in deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.249.175 (talk • contribs)
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.