Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Cheney

On 29 July 2004, Mary Cheney was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 consensus to keep. Rossami 23:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - Advert for dearmary.com. Article clearly anti-Cheney, anti-Coors and anything else anti-gay.  There may be an article about her that can be written but this clear advertisement attempting to get people to write to her and "out" her again isn't it. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep, very good rewrite. - Elf-friend 22:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Amended: Elf-friend 07:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC))
 * Keep, and  Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A very loud Keep. But also a very loud Clean the damn thing up. She's very notable and if these issues with her sexuality and supporting her father can be discussed in an NPOV, then all the better. Mike H 22:27, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Acegikmo1 22:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I guess I am bias on this, since I wrote the article. I thought I kept it pretty NPOV, since I personally am quite opposed to dearmary.com and similar efforts to criticize her and 'force' her to do something. Now if anybody wants to 'pull' the POV in the other direction, go for it. However, there should be an article on her and the issue, since basically every major newspaper has written something about. Yardcock 22:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be an article on her, but not much of any reference to dearmary, because it's quite obvious that the website creators think she's a "sell-out," and that's not really NPOV. I don't think there will be much work in cleaning it up. I think rewording some sentences and taking out dearmary will do fine. Mike H 22:45, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up. Note that "dearmary" is the number one google hit for her, and is worth a mention, though I have downplayed it to the relevant level. Please take a look. Given the amount of attention she has garnered, this is an obvious keep. Pcb21| Pete 22:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleaned up, it's a good article... might merit some expansion. I think the key here is that the article needs to be edited by somebody with no strong opinion either way... just to keep it encyclopedic in tone. -FZ 23:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * keep.--Ianb 00:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep: Great cleaning job.  I would suggest, though, that the Dear Mary go back in.  It is the reason she gets a great deal of contemporary interest.  Granted that that information will be less relevant in 4 months, but it's a logical piece of information for this article.  Geogre 00:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Gamaliel 08:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep now, yup. - TB 09:13, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting and encyclopedic article. --Ardonik 04:06, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)