Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Richardson Dinwoodey


 * 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 Eluchil404 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Annette Richardson Dinwoodey

 * — (View AfD)

Keep A rare for me, I saw clean it up with some better sources. Davidpdx 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable genealogist and centenarian. This was deleted via prod (by me) months ago but was recently recreated.  Notability is apparently writing up family history but so do I and that doesn't make me notable.  Or maybe notability is being a centenarian but my great-great-aunt was 106 when she died and that doesn't make her notable.  Apparently had a local news piece done about her but every news station runs similar stories from time to time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable because she passes WP:MUSIC as a vocalist who performed nationally (including at Carnegie Hall) and on national radio (CBS Radio). --Eastmain 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I found this, but there's not much else (only 27 non-wiki ghits). MER-C 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a touching story, no doubt, but I routinely hear a few stories like this at every family reunion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep until more searching done. I have her getting 7 points in my system, but she needs a major newspaper reference. I'll look in the Utah papers archive. If it gets deleted, save a copy to the editors user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't look as likely as I had figured anyway - but I'm all for userfying if things turn. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing sufficient proof of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is no longer, or never really was, an encyclopedia by traditional standards. It is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. Only a tiny fraction of its contents would be considered encyclopedic by Britannica or Americana standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not defined in relation to "Britannica or Americana standards". It is defined by its own policies and guidelines. Please argue from our guidelines, not from comparisons with other projects. Most editors consider that material suitable for almanacs and gazetteers is quite unsuitable. Bwithh was appropriate to make an argument of encyclopedic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then use the term "doesn't meet Wikipedia standards" not "non encyclopedic". Gazetteers info not welcome in Wikipedia? We have an article on every town in the US by default. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the link from Deseret News provided by MER-C she seems to have been a notable singer in her time before TV and music videos to have been a national soloist for CBS, performed in Carnegie Hall, London's Royal Albert Hall and an audience of more than 50,000 soldiers.--John Lake 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as there seems just enough to make a proper article about someone who had historical notability. I'm not sure whether being on the radio or singing at Carnegie Hall by itself confers notability (and it is not made clear from the sources whether she was a "headliner"). --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough - has a collection on display at University of Utah for example. I share some of Dhartung's concerns re extent of notability. Orderinchaos78 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per above.Oo7565 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since she was a soloist for CBS. The Carnegie reference is less clear since we don't have evidence that she appeared there as a soloist. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems notable enough- DE SU  23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If we can have articles on each of the hundreds of Pokémon entities, then certainly a person who performed nationally and on national radio merits an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, even I'm pretty much in agreement (if the article were as nice when I nominated it as it is now, I would have never brought it here). But you should probably know that you just gave a textbook example of a Pokemon test - using Pokemon as the example no less!  ;)  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; I was unaware of the Pokemon test (though I had a feeling I was on thin ice). Interesting, though, that the Karen article, mentioned on that page, appears to have no references at all despite WP:NOTE's assertion that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...."  I guess I haven't been hanging out in the AFD's enough lately. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wkikpedians seem to be folks who are far more interested in videogame characters and fictional characters, who can have articles with zero independent soources, than in old people, churches, malls, and other real but 'boring' things. Edison 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that this is what the article looked like before Richard Arthur Norton worked his magic - nothing about singing or Carnegie Hall or anything. I'll have to ask Mr. Norton to take a look before I bring articles to AFD in the future!  { —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2006 (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.