Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene A. Bradford


 * 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. Keeper |  76  01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Irene A. Bradford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot figure out what the notability consists of. A local high school teacher, and local historian, well known in her own community and unknown elsewhere. The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL.  DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  03:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is a nicely done biography of an upstanding citizen known only in her community. I have several such individuals among my ancestors. I do not intend to write Wikipedia biographies of them. I do not believe that routine local newspaper coverage makes an ordinary hardworking person notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. Here is a remarkable woman who was head and shoulders above almost everyone else. With perseverance, courage, and kindness she literally held this rural town together spiritually, despite the burden of debts owed on the farm which was a legacy from her husband.PIAM54 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Admirable and worthy person but does not meet notability requirements. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
 * delete not notable, sort of thing to send to a local library for local studies, not Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete No words can capture the greatness of this woman, whose character, courage, and compassion were an example to all whose lives she touched. She gave to lost souls of her village the shelter of her home and heart, and from the air of everyday life she fashioned the timeless reverence of eternity. I have been privileged to know a great many remarkable people in my nearly four score years, ranging from Nobel Prize winners to Olympic gold medalists. None of them shine brighter in my book than this humble, loving school teacher, farmer, and spiritual leader from rural Maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKSR1903 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)  — KKSR1903 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If No words can capture her greatness then she is not a candidate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia requires sources see Verifiability, not truth. You could try Facebook.Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC).


 * delete Most sources for the article aren't reliable (e.g. ancestry.com, FamilySearch) and there is no evidence that this person is notable by the standards of wikipedia.  Star767 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Some of the hagiographic language has to go, and there's far too much genealogy cruft and bad sourcing that would be better removed but the Bangor Daily News coverage (ref 23 of this version, together with (taking on good faith) the four-part Houlton Pioneer Times profile (refs 19–22), looks like enough for WP:GNG for me. But it's only a weak keep rather than a full keep because the coverage is too local. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (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.