Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Johnson (activist)


 * 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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}

Abby Johnson (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable author of non-notable book. Nothing to suggest any of her assertions are true. PhGustaf (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage in news sources including the Washington Times, ABC and FOX news, and the Telegraph in the UK. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep The article is not about her assertions. The article is about her. She seems to gain significant press coverage (even if her assertions were not true, they were notably discussed in media), i.e., she is notable in real world, hence sufficiently notable for wikipedia to provide a balanced view amid the polarized controversy. Loggerjack (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Binksternet. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as article creator. She was notable before her book and is notable without it. Plenty of mainstream and notable coverage. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons related here. Rationale given in the nom for deletion doesn't hold water. Brain Rodeo (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage in niche papers like the Wash. Times, CNA, etc. wouldn't cut it, but there's Salon, ABC. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep More than ample coverage in reliable sources. – Lionel (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Close per WP:SNOW: I've never seen so many pro-lifers and pro-choicers in agreement. I gotta bookmark this for posterity. We should get Haymaker in on this---does anyone mind if I canvass him? – Lionel (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Throw those sitting on the fence in as well :-) Loggerjack (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - If people would learn how to footnote better, stating the exact source of the green links in the footnote section, this might never have been challenged. Clearly over the bar. Next... Carrite (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I certainly made a bad guess about consensus here. If an admin wants to close it as snow, fine with me.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for Haymaker!!!! – Lionel (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2011 (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.