Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Mallory


 * 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 (no consensus to merge).--Chaser - T 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Laura Mallory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-Notable Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.253.125 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. This person's only claim to fame is persistence in trying to have the Harry Potter books removed from school libraries; that can be and is adequately covered in Controversy over Harry Potter.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This person is at best a footnote in the Harry Potter article, at worst an ignorant person who has managed to slip their was into our court systems, without even having read the books. Delete the article, but leave the reference to her in Controversy over Harry Potter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.205.253.125 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Notably stupid as per washington post and other articles. Mystache 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:BIO (sources) or merge/redirect if there's an Harry Potter article where this could go. --W.marsh 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversy over Harry Potter looks good. --W.marsh 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Controversy over Harry Potter.Ezratrumpet 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Controversy over Harry Potter. Mallory is not more notable than any other critic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- I've thought hard about this one- while she is one of the most idiotic people ever, she is just probably a passing fad... but if she is deleted, then less people will know about her extreme idiocy. I think an unbiased, just-the-facts article is in call for. Certainly Mallory is the most ill-intentioned, alarmist Harry Potter "critic" around, and she has taken extreme legal action. Sean MD80 talk 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep she is particularly notable because of the newspaper attention,. There are others who challenge this and similar books who do not get media attention, but she has gotten public notice. She was not be the only such fool of the year, but she is the most notable. DGG 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. 3 newspaper references, over a span of time, satisfies WP:ATT. Edison 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reason Xenu is a featured article; that is, because the general public deserves to know about individual persons' stupidity. Especially the really loud and obnoxious kind. Axem Titanium 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is notable Lizzie Harrison 12:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Voldemortize (merge in muggle-speak) This article is a vandal magnet, and a litigation-happy paranoid person like her may well threaten to sue wikipedia for libel. Do we really need another Daniel Brandt situation? If Controversy over Harry Potter gets too large, then we can create an article on "religious opposition to Harry Potter". If that gets too large, and we create content worthy of a full-length article, then (and only then) create an article on her. Andjam 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The way to handle libel concerns is to rigorously source all negative information per Biographies of living persons.--Chaser - T 10:14, 21 April 2007 (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.