Talk:Letty M. Russell

Speedy deletion nomination of Letty M. Russell


A tag has been placed on Letty M. Russell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kiwirad (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... she is important and the article is being edited right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwirad (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is being edited and improved right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwirad (talk • contribs) 10:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

POV
This article reads less like a biography and more like a continuous stream of statements of praise for its subject (which statements, incidentally, it does not cite the sources for). It is clearly more concerned with expressing a singular point of view on the subject than on providing information. I move that in the very least some weeding should take place here, so that the relevant does not drown in the superfluous.--Nikolaj Christensen (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely. It reads like an obituary. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Entry for Letty M. Russell Should Not Be Deleted
I'm currently sitting in a theology class where our students are discussing Letty M. Russell's Church in the Round (1993), one of the major sources for feminist interpretations of ecclesiology (Christian doctrine concerning the church). Although her views were and remain controversial, there's no question about her contributions and the central role that she has played. It looks to me like the hagiographical references may have been removed; the article strikes me as representing a fair appraisal of her work and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.235.29 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)