Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ellis (spinster)


 * 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   Speedy Keep per WP:SK for a few reasons. First, the nominator has failed to advance a valid reason for deletion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid and "Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society" is not grounded in policy). Second, the nomination appears to be a disruptive attempt at avenging a perceived wrong by another user. Given that, and the fact that no one other than the nominator has supported deletion, I conclude that this meets the first two criteria for speedily keeping the article. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Ellis (spinster)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Needs to go just as the horrid article on "Mary Ellis grave." Wikipedia is not an antiquarian society. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. WP:JDLI is a weak argument, the page is well sourced, and it gives proper back story for a popular song.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced and has relevance. Alex (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep disruptive, punitive nomination per Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston‎ and Articles for deletion/Eversharp‎. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. Coverage in a mainstream newspaper and published book means the subject is verifiable in reliable sources, which are our two bases of inclusion on Wikipedia.  I hope everyone had a nice Christmas!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have the suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to the same articles over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write and all three have nominated Joachim Cronman. See Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but that's surely a discussion for a different forum. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should file a report at Sockpuppet investigations. User:Drawn Some last edited on September 26th.  User:Gerbelzodude99 first edited on November 27th.  It is possible the same person abandoned the one account and started the new one.  Given Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553, and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive198.  In the most recent one an admin even proposed banning Drawn Some from Richard.  Drawn Some subsequently stopped editing, so it is conceivable that the person behind the account switched accounts to avoid scrutiny when renewing the attacks on Richard's articles?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 28 December 2009 (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.