Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meg Sneed


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Meg Sneed

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Of local note only, WP:SPA article. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - just another BLP1E and of local interest only, per nom - A l is o n  ❤ 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is in need of heavy cleanup (such as replacing out of date websites with archive versions), however going through Google News shows her being the leading figure named in news stories for more than one notable gay activism event. Consequently the BLP1E does not strictly apply here and as sources such as The Advocate are cited, the news was not only of local interest. There are reasonable grounds to expect the article can be significantly improved. Ash (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I got rid of all of the dead links and replaced them with working ones, along with other new references as well. I also cleaned up the article a bit. I'm going to continue working at it. Either way, she is definitely notable because she is known for multiple events and is the leader of different, notable groups. Entirely not WP:BLP1E. Silver  seren C 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, the article looks dramatically better. Ash (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google News link at the top of the AFD shows relevant results.  The first one is "Lesbian tries to blaze trail against Arizona ballot issue" Detroit News - Jul 14, 2008.  Others look relevant as well.  Nominator should do a Google news search BEFORE nominating something for deletion.   D r e a m Focus  23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Not only did I do a Google news search, I looked through many of the articles sited.  Sneed is referred to in most as the organizer of the march for equality and a participant in Soulforce (organization).  In my mind, that did not make her notable - one local event that is referenced briefly in other sources, sometimes with her name, did not seem enough to satisfy WP:N - thus my bringing the article here.
 * As it stands right now, all the references in the article are either WP:SELFPUB (Sneed is a member of Soulforce, so those count as SELFPUB), or are from Phoenix (local). The only exceptions are the Advocate article (Sneed is mentioned once in a 137 word article) and the Creators.com profile, but I don't believe that one is a WP:RS.  I maintain what I stated - she seems to be of local note only. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 09:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Creators is an actual newspaper syndicate, just as notable as, say, the New York Times. If you click home, you'll see that it's an actual newspaper. Silver  seren C 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? From their about page: Creators Syndicate now represents over 200 of the most talented writers and artists in the world, including Robert Novak, Mike Luckovich, Bill O'Reilly, One Big Happy, BC, Wizard of Id, and Speed Bump. Our talent has won countless awards, including Pulitzer prizes, Reuben awards, and many others.  I'm not well-versed in WP:RS, but that sounds more like a talent agency than a newspaper. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple sources show her notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2010 (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.