Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis


 * 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 already speedily deleted by Xoloz per CSD-G4. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis
Every statement in this article was previously published in a secondary source. Any editor who claims otherwise, is an editor who refuses to consult the sources for themselves. That refusal is *not* grounds for AfD this article. And Speedy Delete is inappropriate for this article under Assume Good Faith. This article is being submitted for arbitration and mediation, as soon as I can figure out how. Wjhonson 06:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add WikiProject Wikipedians for local history/Kittie May Ellis to this AfD, as it is a copy of this article (or a previous version of it). Fram 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article was AfD'ed only yesterday (Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination), and speedy deleted by an administrator. This has nothing to do with good faith (WP:AGF is what you probably wanted to link to). Furthermore, I don't think you should be lecturing on good faith when you accuse people in this AfD of refusing to do things, and when you are more than willing to label other peoples' changes as vandalism (see e.g. here or here). My reasons for deletion are given countless times before, but basically, it is that her claim to notability (not the trivial facts of her life) does not meet WP:V. Fram 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that her claim of notability does not meet WP:V is based on no research on your part whatsoever. However, the research of several local historians says she is notable.  So your position is based on opinion solely, while you denigrate the combined research of local historians, with no basis at all for your position.  And as any admin can see this article is being re-worked and cited to secondary, previously published, reliable sources. Wjhonson 15:02, 21 July 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.