Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Bernadette Grier


 * 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   delete. The only editor supporting keep has agreed there are no adequate sources to fulfill the notability criteria  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dolores Bernadette Grier

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to be notable. All the RS I can find on her are passing mentions - no Google News, no JSTOR, a couple of mentions in Google Books but generally as president of an organization rather than as a notable figure in her own right. (Note that I also tried "Dolores Grier," without the middle name.) The article itself has apparently been lacking in reliable sources since its creation - I'm amazed it's stuck around this long. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO.  Just a non-notable private person who happens to be against abortion.  That's not enough to justify an article. Qworty (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article itself makes no case for her notability - it just quotes her from a couple of non-notable sources. But there may be more to her than appears in the article. She gets a certain amount of coverage at Google News for being an activist and an official (Vice Chancellor) with the New York Archdiocese. I'm not sure this amounts to significant coverage, but she is not a nobody. See, for example,, . --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't read the second one, but the first one doesn't constitute significant coverage. She has a position, yes, but I doubt that every sub-head of every department in every archdiocese is automatically notable. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they were. The discussion here is about the notability (or not) of one individual, not of a class of people. I'm inclined to agree with you that her coverage doesn't add up to notability, but I gave some links here since others may disagree. Meanwhile, there's no point in refuting arguments nobody has raised. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood your comment - I thought you were saying that she was inherently notable in her official capacity, rather than that news has covered her in that capacity. Which it has, as I saw when I looked her up before nominating, but not to a degree that satisfies any notability requirement. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I initially closed this discussion as "delete" but have reopened it on request from someone who wishes to make a "keep" argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and Qworty. Primary claim of notability is having supposedly written a book, but it's difficult to verify whether this book even exists, much less is notable.  It doesn't seem to even be on Amazon. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BIO, "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - Grier is a notable activist on the subject of race and reproductive rights. Her comments and opinions on the subject are quoted at length - http://books.google.com/books?id=TcIDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - and - http://books.google.com/books?id=8lPH4qIscpsC&lpg=PA108&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - and in several other books found through a Google Book search. As I'm at work, I can't solely focus on fixing this article, but I believe there is more on her out there, she is notable and it is fixable. ManicSpider (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we've already been past this on your talk page, but for the benefit of anyone else reading: no, trivial mentions do not satisfy WP:BIO, not even quotes; no, "widely recognized contribution" means that someone has recognized her contribution, which no reliable sources appear to have done; and no, if she was notable, she would have received coverage that satisfied the notability criteria. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comment. Closing admin should note that ManicSpider has retracted his "keep" vote (or if I'm misrepresenting your views, MS, I apologize and I'll remove this comment). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concession It appears that the consensus is clear. At present I can not find any more sources that would fulfill the necessary criteria. I had thought that I could make fix the article, but given the sources I can find I'll agree it doesn't argue for significant coverage. My apologies for any inconvenience. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Manicspider. Dwain (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty putting it that way, because I believe she is notable. However, I cannot find significant coverage in independent sources, the independent part posing the strongest hurdle. I put a note on the admin's page informing them of my inability to find said sources, so they should be along shortly. (Oh, and technically "her 'keep' vote" ^_^) - ManicSpider (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god I'm sorry. Usually I use gender-neutral pronouns but for some reason I thought you were male - I must have thought I'd interacted with you in the past, but I guess that was another user with a username that was similar in some way. Anyway, I've struck my comment. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:42, 14 January 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.