Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Monnett Bain

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 13:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can't quite tell what this is. Her mother's wife? Not patent, but kind of nonsesne. Geogre 17:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unfinished work. The contributor plans to edit it. And I apologize for making a guess it is an OCR. Mikkalai 20:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like it could turn into an interesting article once it's finished- I think I remember hearing about that incident years ago. Keep it pending cleaning.-FZ 19:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

at the very least. VfD tag has been re-inserted. It will roll off and reach dispensation at the usual time. Geogre 00:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * WfD notice removed. Clearly, the article was listed here by a misunderstanding. Mikkalai 20:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Does the article still say that "it was her mother's wife" who did X for her (in the 19th century)?  To say that it was a mistaken listing is a mistake.  When it was submitted to Wikipedia, it had gaps in it.  It is now full of redlinks.  When it came in, it wandered about with 19th century circumlocutions.  It still does.  When it came in, it was not in encyclopedic format.  It still isn't.  The listing was not a mistake.  If you believe that it should be kept, that's fine, but unilateral removal of the VfD label is not appropriate action without consensus.  This is especially true since this article needs to be listed on Clean Up
 * Also, if you are feeling that it's "clearly" a mistake, you might want to ask the nominator to remove the nomination, rather than taking it upon yourself. If you scan the rest of the VfD page, you will see many more entries that were "clearly" listed by misunderstanding, since they have been getting keep votes.  It is inconsiderate to act unilaterally. I have not voted, since I did the nomination, but I would very strongly urge clean up, sentence clarifying, and getting rid of redlinks to people who are very unlikely to warrant articles.  If you were to remove the VfD, the least you could do would be to have inserted the cleanup tag.  Geogre 00:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hey George, not all of us are perfect. I fixed the mistake (I typed her mother's wife when I meant LIFE) and would have been glad to have fixed anything if you would have had the courtesy to contact me directly.  As for your charges of people in this article who you claim  do not warrant articles, these are people who are important to the history of the Methodist Episcopalian movement – while their actions may have not impacted you, they impacted the education of generations of women.  I will add in Bishop Gurley’s first name when I can get to the library and look it up. I would also point out that Ohio Wesleyan University honors this woman annually, even after the building bearing her name was razed.  So I would ask that you reconsider and remove it from deletion."[[user:  13:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)stude62 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article looks fine now. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good now: I apologize for unleashing the thunder, but the article needed work in a lot of ways. It has received that.  While it's no more perfect than anything else in the sublunary world, I don't think it needs a Clean Up listing either.  I will happily be proven wrong, remove the nomination and, in a day, remove the listing entirely from VfD, though I hope it can stay for that long to see if anyone strongly objects. Geogre 18:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.