Talk:Miriam Young

Notability

 * @User:Intgr: Regarding this edit, GNG says absolutely no such thing. It says that multiple sources are generally expected (ie in more than 50% of cases). There is near unanimous consensus that an NYT obituary is one of the exceptions envisaged by GNG. In any event, there are other sources easily findable with Google, including reviews that satisfy AUTHOR. James500 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is near unanimous consensus that an NYT obituary is one of the exceptions envisaged by GNG"
 * If that is true, very well. Can you point me to such a consensus? Usually a consensus is only local consensus that applies to one article, otherwise policies and guidelines take precedence.
 * "there are other sources easily findable with Google"
 * Seems like you're trying to shift the burden; I had a quick look on Google and her notability is not as clear as you make it sound (not helped by the fact that there are multiple people by that name). But regardless, it is the burden of the person trying to claim notability to provide sources. Or in this case provide evidence that one source is sufficient.
 * I believe that one source is not sufficient to establish notability, that's why the template is there. I've seen lots of deletion discussions and in my experience, the general requirement of multiple sources gets interpreted literally. But here I'm not even trying to delete the article, but just facilitate more sources. -- intgr [talk] 10:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that one source is not sufficient to establish notability, that's why the template is there. I've seen lots of deletion discussions and in my experience, the general requirement of multiple sources gets interpreted literally. But here I'm not even trying to delete the article, but just facilitate more sources. -- intgr [talk] 10:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway this whole issue is moot now, I have removed the template. Thanks for cooperating! :) -- intgr [talk] 10:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)