Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrietta Jane Green


 * 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. A clear consensus that the subject meets notability guidelines. Reliable sources have been identified that can be added to the article which can now be improved by normal editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta Jane Green

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completing the AfD process for an IP editor who was unable to create the deletion-discussion page. I don't know what the rationale is, but the IP's edit summary when removing some information from the article was "This is a disgustingly biased - and unreferenced - article which I shall be nominating for deletion." I'm offering no opinion myself. Deor (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - singificant coverage here, and here. The Times has coverage as well, but not available to us cheapskates.  See these search results, and note two article which have her as the headline: "Henrietta Green: market leader", and "Real Food Pioneer: Henrietta Green". -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: She clearly meets WP:GNG as a "leader" and a "pioneer" in her field.  Any issues about "bias" and "unreferenced" can be solved through the regular editing process.  The IP nominee may not have read what to do before making a nomination, and may actually be prejudiced aginst the subject.  Some editors have been making an effort to make Wikipedia more female-friendly. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep First things first, I am not impressed by an editor running with an AFD nom for an anonymous IP without really knowing why the anon IP wanted the article deleted. Second, as far as the article being "disgustingly biased", we have been provided with absolutely no evidence of such bias.  Deterence  Talk 10:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep - Very obviously meets notability guidelines. In light of this, and the fact that this was nominated on behalf of a user who provided no clear rationale, I would suggest we apply WP:SNOW. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:43, 21 September 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.