Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Thoms Clark

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 4 clear "delete" votes and 7 "keep" votes. However, 4 of the "keep" votes have to be thrown out as either mis-votes or anonymous users. That leaves a majority to delete, but not the overwhelming concensus necessary to carry out the deletion. The decision defaults to "keep".

However, I also note that several users commented on the low quality and possible bias of the article. I concur with that assessment and will mark it for clean-up. If not improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may become appropriate to renominate the article. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Thoms Clark
Poet, but doesn't google. The article, however, is not really about her, but is a very POV criticism of her entry in the DNB. Radiant! 12:54, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The Recycling Troll 09:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV. Gamaliel 05:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable; not an article. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wouldn't it be in breach of your policy of neutralism to delete it? Grounds for believing the woman's middle name is Thoms are 1) John Cairns' remembering she was at pains to correct his assumption she meant Thomson, her mother's maiden name, when it was Thoms, a different name from the other side of her family; & 2) Family Records has it as Thoms.  Either source might be mistaken but each corroborates the other & reinforces the probability Thoms is correct.  Either source for the Wikipedia entry is better than that cited for the middle name given in the DNB entry, her brother.  That entry cites no public record source.  For Wikipedia to drop its entry would be to endorse as true what, on the balance of probabilities, is false.  That would be iniquitous of Wikipedia.  Is my view that your deletion would be in breach of your policy correct, or not, in your view?  Deletion would not only be POV but erroneous POV.  Further, your entry backs up statements by quotations from the subject's letters, validating them.  (Archivist)
 * Other than a single vandalism last October, all of User:212.85.7.14's previous edits have been to the article; he is its sole author. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 16:31, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The John Cairns Archive is a useful sourse of information **unsigned vote from 62.249.208.64.  First edit.
 * DELETE --ZayZayEM 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I found this article extremely interesting and informative and vote to keep it,Taggart.
 * User:212.162.202.226's only edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Very interesting.  Keith MacGregor Second vote from 62.249.208.64.
 * Keep- not famous, is notable. Bluemoose 17:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote came after the voting period is over. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Removed in light of Korath's comment. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The voting period is not over until the discussion is closed. See the header of Votes for deletion/Old. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author of published work is notable. The article is POV and needs a clean-up, however. --Theo  (Talk) 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote came after the voting period is over. --Deathphoenix 20:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Removed in light of Korath's comment. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As above. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.