Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination)

I am confused at all the controversy. None of the statements made in the original article seem inflammatory. Is there a particular fact, other than the statement that she was notable, that is in dispute. Why so much concern over something seemingly harmless?

I am interested in Snohomish County history and am pleased to see the diary available to all.


 * Both the last comment on this AfD page, and the comment above on this Talk page, are by first time contributors. As for this particular comment: the diary is not available on Wikipedia and will never be. Parts of the diary are available on Wikisource and are not under discussion here. So you can continue to be pleased :-). As for the original article: the controversy is mainly in the fact that the original creator keeps on recreating the article after it has been deleted (two times under its original name, two times as Kittie May Ellis, and one time as Catherine May Ellis). Apart from that, the article was not inflammatory (and I don't think anyone claimed it was), but many editors disagreed with the notability of the person, and the verifiability of said notability (not of the trivial facts of her life). Both are legitimate reasons to delete an article. Fram 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely incorrect. The Kittie May and Catherine May were redirects for one thing.  And the original AfD was about evenly split.  It was only after the Review begun and closed in rapid fashion that this new set of conflicts arose. Wjhonson 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An AfD is not a vote count, it's a policy check. And when you try to influence the vote count anyway by using meatpuppets (WP:MEAT), then it gets even less valid. And Kittie May was not a redirect (a redirect to what? To a deleted article?). Fram 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)