Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca H. Davis


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca H. Davis
Biography of person with no noteworthy achievements. Delete &mdash;Brim 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A good biography, but no assertion of notability. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. She sounds she was a like a very nice person and the biography is well written but the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also violates NPOV...what if somebody thought she was a real jerk and not a "remarkable person." Batman2005 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)   07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn-bio. MCB 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NOT Delete. This article is undergoing continual updates by the author as research continues.  The author has responded to one of the commentators because of the availability of a talkpage. Some others have no means of a direct response by the author. The author is NOT memorializing this person, but is attempting to write a credible contribution of one person's high imprint for change on society around her at a time when a single woman in that location was considered a "spinster" and did not value herself beyond her front door.  Also, "noteworthiness" can lie outside the average, limited public view and current judgments -- which is actually possible, given none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made.   Also, if a commentor happens to be an atheist, their also lies the possibility of an underlying bias in their comments on this particular article.  And the commentary of "remarkableness" vs. thinking "jerk" was actually the use of another person's opinion.  I should have kept the article as a "Draft" if that was possible.  I am still fairly new to writing for Wiki. mshafbMshafb 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that "none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made." proves each persons point on here, that while she sounds like a great person, she is not of encyclopedic value and thus doesn't warrant inclusion here. Additionally, your assertion that someones religous views might determine their thoughts on this article are both offensive and unwarranted, you have no idea as to the religious beliefs of the users here.  I notice how you claim that the "remarkable person" content was someone elses opinion, yet you make no effort to properly cite this information, or remove it as biased and POV.  The article is riddled with POV, contains original and non-verifiable research and is written of a subject who does not meet the criteria for biographical inclusion here.  This is not a statement to your ability to write a memorial, nor one against the character of the subject.  There are many non-encyclopedic sites on which you may write a tribute/memorial article. I would suggest looking there as the consensus here is delete. Batman2005 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - bio with no assertion of notability. I'm not sure that being a good and kind person counts as an assertion of notability. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regrettable.  Well written bio.  But we can't have an article on WP for every good person on earth.  Agree with comments of all "delete" voters above. I suggest the author set up a webpage or blog if they want to memorialize this person (or else find a verifiable "notable" accomplishment which would qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia). Slowmover 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:BIO, WP:NPOV and Notability. Looking at the other articles this user has created it appears that BIO and especially NPOV seems to be a recurring problem. I would suggest in reply to User:Mshafb's protestations of the article being unfinished, that you copy it into one of your user pages until completion and then whilst ensuring it complies to WP:Manual of Style, WP:BIO and WP:NPOV then it may be considered a legitamate article for inclusion in the wiki project (however notability may still be a problem). Comment - my atheism or the fact I did not know the person does not have any bearing what so ever in this AfD process and should not have been brought to discussion. Death Eater Dan    [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 17:58, 25 February 2006 (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.