Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Adler

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. At least after the article has been improved during the AfD. Bxzooo is however reminded that they do not own the article and may not make contributions to it that are promotional or not verifiable through independent published sources.  Sandstein  05:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Adler[edit]

Peggy Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity article authored by the subject. (completing nomination for IP editor - not voting at this time) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, omg, she thinks we have to know about her nannying. Not notable - no significant coverage in reliable sources, no other notability standards met. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do know that she'll be reading your comments. Not meaning that as a threat towards you, but as a gentle reminder that one should be more cautious (and delicate) when discussing BLP related things. Killiondude (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment point taken, even though not addressed to me. perhaps WP:YOURSELF is relevant, esp: Note that anything you submit will be edited mercilessly by others. Many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community. surely if WP:BLP applies to project space, so does this warning. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Killiondude - I don't think we'd hesitate to condemn this kind of trivial detail in a non-vanity article, and vanity articles by non-notable people trying to use Wikipedia as a resume service are not the thing to be giving preferential treatment to - but, likewise, point taken. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete although i have to say that i think this should be preserved as an object lesson in how not to write a wikipedia article about yourself (like don't list worldcat on your resume) or, failing that, as some kind of weird performance art. my favorite bit: Upon discovering that he was merely a con artist who was drawing her into literary fraud, she contacted former CIA agent turned journalist, Frank Snepp... anyway, clearly fails all notability standards. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is obviously full of tripe. However, per Wp:author, does she have notability? Among her (mostly over the top) references, I see 17 works in the Library of Congress[1], a collection at the University of Minnesota[2]... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment unfortunately, as impressive as the LOC sounds, and as great a library as it is, its holdings are possibly the worst of any library in the u.s. for purposes of arguing notability. the LOC gets copies of every book published under copyright in the country, and they hang on to about half of them. also, i'm dubious of any library-holdings based argument for notability of authors, since libraries have books in their collections for all kinds of reasons, e.g. as primary sources for researchers studying genres, and notability of author in such cases isn't considered by the library. a university library quite close to me (top 20, research I) has crates of Tijuana bibles and white supremacist handbills in its collection. the objects themselves are notable. almost certainly their authors are not. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: While I don't disagree, these appear to be published children's books which is what gives me pause. It's not a field I have much experience in and I don't feel that I'm knowledgeable enough to say that she's not notable in it. OTOH, the page is in dire need of a purge at the very least. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment that is an excellent move. good thinking. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To Whom it may concern at Wikipedia,
My name is Ron Rosenbaum. I'm a journalist, essayist and author of (among others) <Explaining Hitler>, <The Shakespeare Wars>, <The Secret Parts of Fortune> and most recently <How the End Begins:The Road to a Nuclear World war III>. The first 3 from Random House, the most recent from Simon&Schuster. My work has appeared in <The New York Times> magazine (eight cover stories), <Harper's>, <The New Yorker>, <the New York Observer>  among other periodicals. I am currently a cultural columnist for Slate.

Peggy Ann Adler told me there was a Wikipedia debate about her  "notabiity". I've known her and her notable skills and intergrity for nearly a decade. I basically would say that in the murky gray world of fact and fiction, and the penumbra of paranaoia that afflicts so many contentious subjects today, Peggy Adler is one of the few researchers who has the stringency, tenacity and skepticism to bring clarity to to these matters, rather than add confusion.

She was the one, for instance who led me through a long trail of people and circumstances to arrange the first-ever videotaping of the Skull and Bones Initiation ritual, which was subsequently broadcast on ABC Nightly News and which I wrote about in the New York Observer and other outlets. She also had the persistence and skills to track down some important tax, real estate and corporation name-changing by the Skull and Bones shell corporation, as well as trace the links of Skull and Bones members to intelligence agencies.

To me she is not only notable but a valuable asset to the journalistic community.

Yours truly, Ron Rosenbaum, 66.65.185.174 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.185.174 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your testimonial, Ron. Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, we have to go by what other people have already reported about subjects, rather than speaking from our own knowledge. Can you provide WP:Reliable sources that back up the statements you've made above? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler

Dear Sarek, When you say you rely on "other people" for your info, I'm puzzzled. Wouldn't I count as "other people". I have first hand knowledge of everything I described about Peggy Adler and everything is googlable as well. Do I need to provide urls, take a lie detector test? Please advise. Ron Rosenbaum 66.65.185.174 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, we need WP:Reliable sources, as are defined at that link, for all our information, but more especially for living people.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [edit]

from ron rosenbaum re: peggy adler Sarek, http://www.observer.com/2001/04/at-skull-and-bones-bushs-secret-club-initiates-ream-gore-2/ you'l note Peggy Adler named herein. Ron Rosenbaum 66.65.185.174 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Bxzooo 14:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - The article needs work, this is true. I've pared down some of the stuff that I didn't see proper third party refs for. But there are multiple references out there. Not all of the sources listed in my previous sentence have significant coverage of her, but enough sources with "mild" coverage should suffice. Note that in her first marriage she was Peggy Adler-Walsh and some of her work is attributed to her as Peggy Alder-Robohm. (Hopefully there is no confusion when looking at sources.) Killiondude (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm leaning this way, and I've done some minor editing myself. However, it doesn't help that Bxzooo keeps "fluffing it up". I have removed some of the more obvious non-notable/uncitable entries (nannying and little league stuff). IMO, this is like (and please excuse the example, but I've just watched Rat Race (film) again) someone editing the Klaus Barbie page to go into great detail about his love/work in ballroom dance. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to disagree with you, Roscelese but I must concede that the Congressional Record and Newsweek are also valid sources (see her page). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the "Congressional Record" just a reprint of the Newsweek article? (And I do still think that the mention of here there is not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.) If it were the Congressional Record, that would be a primary source anyway, and thus not useful for establishing notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's about what the congressional record is good for, or even this (not that there's anything wrong with the cause, it's just, like, not that hard to end up in the congressional record). the sources ought to stand or fall on their own merits, and whether or not some congressman read them into the record strikes me as completely irrelevant to anything. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we throw out the Congressional Record, Courant + Newsweek = 2. That's usually the bar for notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two is technically "multiple," but I don't think it's really in the spirit of a guideline whose purpose is to determine who is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (I also, as I've stated, think the coverage in Newsweek is a trivial mention that does not confer notability.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment perhaps everyone is already aware of it, but Bxzooo has self-identified as Peggy Ann Adler: User_talk:Bxzooo#copyright — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article took a bit of sleuthing to figure out whether the subject is notable, because the self-written page does a lot to make her sound like a major figure in world historic events. The section on Butch Cassidy sounds on close reading like a glorious college internship or first job: sell tickets for a movie at Yale, arrange logistics for a party, meet Paul Newman - not something for which she received notable coverage, nor is there sourcing. The lioness illustration is very nice, but there is no demonstration that she has received notable attention as an illustrator (no significant press coverage, no expositions in important museums (or anywhere?)). So the case for this article comes down to her work as a private investigator. She has provided good sources, and even a journalist's testimonial on this page, that she did diligent investigative work following the trail of a conspiracy theory that had some Congressional interest and some press coverage. Kudos, but that doesn't elevate her to the standard of notability required for a bio on Wikipedia. Being quoted in an article, even being interviewed on television once or twice, does not make you the subject of the article. If we started writing pages about every journalist's sources, Wikipedia would extend to infinity. I mean, this ain't Deep Throat. So the article clearly fails notability on the movie and illustration sections, and also fails on the private investigator section once you figure out that the cited sources quote her, but are not about her. Bella the Ball (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just saw the article's Talk Page. Not sure what to make of all that: "We hire. We fire. We promote. We discipline." Bella the Ball (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does have a "Forest Gump" feel to it. That's why I'm so conflicted as to keep it or toss it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have been covered by some reliable sources, as indicated by Killiondude above; also, coverage at [3]. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as author and investigator, but certainly needs some editing to remove fluff. I've started. I DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC) and finished. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I'm beginning to be persuaded that this is notable. After all, according to various articles on Wikipedia, Peggy Adler answered Hollywood's call to become a major player in the release of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. She once held the august-sounding position of Vice-President of something called NameBase. She is one of the notable people who once lived in Bayside, Queens. She is a notable resident of Clinton, Connecticut, and wrote a story that appears on the town's website. She was one of the major authors published by the John Day Company. And she is one of a few notable alumni of Bayside High School and Bennington College. In fact, her reputation on Wikipedia is spreading like kudzu, thanks to the diligence of Bxzooo, who (follow the bouncing ball) moved her talk page to Peggy Adler, saying, "Peggy Adler is my name. I used Bxzooo as a user name when I was creating the article. Now that it is completed, I want it to appear under the true name of its subject." We can be pretty sure that she once shook the hand of someone who shook the hand of Barack Obama, and she's at most two degrees from Kevin Bacon. With all that evidence, she has increasingly convincing notable notability. Bella the Ball (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck (but not edited) the comment above. It's a one day old account which has *only* commented on Articles of Deletion, and this stinks of wp:sockpuppetry. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think DGG did an excellent job of making this article not so prima facie risible, but nevertheless, I still don't think that there is much evidence of notability. the only section that has information supported by reliable secondary sources is Peggy_Adler#Investigations. no one has produced any evidence that any of her books are notable, nor that the fact that she wrote the books is notable, nor that she's notable for having written the books. likewise for her small town community involvement. i was thinking for a while about supporting a merge of that one section to the October surprise conspiracy theory article, but, on reading that article, it became clear that merging this material there would harm that article by lowering the average import of the material. i guess that the point of this is that i'd like to thank DGG for his serious and incisive editing, but state clearly that i think we still have a sow's ear on our hands. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per DGG. Has shown a lot of improvement since nomination. Many authors become more notable as journalists than authors of fiction. Needs more references which I think can be found. Dzlife (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In fact, Kevin Bacon’s sister, Elinor (Lini) was my first semester roommate during my Freshman year at Bennington College in 1959. I am sorry that so many of you do not believe that I have done what was in my bio, as originally written. I can assure you that everything that was said there was an accurate account of my almost 70 years on this earth. What do I have to do to prove this to you?

As it is, the list of books in which I was either referenced and/or am the subject has been removed by someone, though at least, for now, they can be accessed via the reference list at Namebase, which is, its self, a Wikipedia page. Actually, wouldn’t being cited in that many books that are published by highly reputable companies make someone as notable, if not more so, than someone merely cited in newspapers and/or magazine articles? Both of which, I have also been, as is witnessed by some of the references that, hopefully, remain.

Additionally, someone removed the fact that I wrote the two “Adler Books of Puzzles and Riddles”. And at ages 20 and 21 no less. My bio now merely says that I illustrated them. How many authors are published by mainstream, New York publishers (not vanity presses) at that age? And the reviews in the “New York Times”, “The Horn Book” and the “Library Journal” were excellent. I do have hard copies of a few, but not all. Everything I illustrated for the Humane Society of the United States, the list of which has also been deleted from my bio, has my name on it as the illustrator. I can scan and upload these to you.

Back in the 1950s and 60s – even into the 70s, there were no PCs and most certainly, there was no Internet. Even into the 80s, newspapers still used line-type setters, because reporters, editors and the like wrote everything with a typewriter. Thus, much is not preserved from those days, other than what was saved in scrapbooks and/or family albums. I do, though have proof of just about everything that I have done and am willing to scan it and upload it to you. There is a 3" volume containing everything regarding the three days of events that I coordinated for 20th Century Fox, in connection with their World Premiere of “Butch Cassidy”, including a letter, to me, from Jonas Rosenfield, Jr., then VP and head of publicity for Fox, thanking me for my work on the Premiere. I can unframe the subpoena that I received from the U. S. House of Representatives and scan it as well.

Just tell me what I have to do to prove to you that I have done everything that my original bio stated and I will provide it to you. In fact, there is much more to what I have accomplished, for which I also have verifiable proof, that I did not include in the bio. No, I am not Forrest Gump, as someone alluded. Just a mom and a grandma who has had the opportunity to do some really unusual, many fascinating and at times, fun things, between 1942 and the present.

Peggy Adler/user:bxzooo Bxzooo 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

  • comment dear ms. adler: as a writer, investigator, etc, you are probably familiar with the distinction between primary and secondary sources. the problem that the people here who have a problem with your article have is not that the information in it is untrue. i doubt that anyone thinks that any of it is false. the problem is that every statement in a wikipedia article should be verifiable by an independent and secondary source which is third-party in the sense that it wasn't written by the subject of it (there are some minor exceptions to this principle for biographic information, but i don't think that they're relevant here). thus the fact that you have a letter from a vp at fox thanking you for some stuff you did is not a sufficient reason for that stuff to be in wikipedia. that is a primary source concerning your activities. if you want to put the line in about the stuff you did for fox, it needs to have been written about in a reliable and fact-checked source and then cited to that source in the article. if you have reviews for the books you've published, i suggest that you try citing them as references for the existence and notability of your books, rather than the books' entries in the LOC catalog, as, believe me, it's not that meaningful to have written a book that's in a library. very likely some of the people you're talking to here have done so themselves. what's meaningful is that the books you've written have been discussed by third parties. there is no expectation on wikipedia that sources have to be available online or easily accessible (although NYT articles from forever are through academic databases), so if you could just use your library of clippings to reference statements to reliable sources, i think that you might have a better chance of rescuing your article than if you keep trying variations on the argument from repetition. it would probably be quite useful if you were to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources this article as well, from which most of the points i've made are summarized. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on my comment: i'm sorry for putting this here, since it probably belongs on the user's talk page. i was just worried that she wouldn't see it there. if someone wants to move it out of here and over there, it's totally fine with me. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Thanks for your information. I thought that most, if not all, of my reference points were third party sources, such as links to the actual newspaper and magaizine articles in which my name appears. Also the link to Namebase which seems to have referenced, for professional researchers, the books in which my name appears. If there are any that are not third party verification, let me know which and I will do my best to supply the necessary information. As for "Butch Cassidy", a person doing the work I did over a period of months would not be mentioned in any of the press. Just the celebs & round-the-world press who came to New Haven for the Premiere and seminars -- whom I sheparded for the three day event. I have all of the daily updates from Fox as to who would be attending. But although these are filed in the 3" volume I mentioned earlier, I did not maintain the envelopes, addressed to me at my home in New Haven, in which they arrived -- never thinking that I would ever have to provide proof of this fantastic, once in a lifetime experience. In fact, Fox, post Premiere, mailed me every proof sheet their people shot during the multiple, multi day events. Also the original TV news film footage was given to me by our CT/ABC affiliate, now known as WTNH. You say I can quote book reviews. Do I then need to scan & upload them for verification? And where? To Wikipedia? Or Wikimedia? I have reviews for some, but not all, of the books I authored. All are excellent. Some publishers, such as John Day, send them to their authors. Others do not. For my educational background, would scanning the pages with my name from the Bayside HS and Bennington College Alumni Directories be considered third party sources? I'm willing to do whatever any/all of you think will be necessary. I just hope that you will give the same scrutiny to others folks bios as well. I have seen and read more than a few, currently at Wikipedia, that have little or no verification and have no flags. I am willing to work with all of you, if all of you can supply me with constructive input.

Regards, Peggy Adler/User=Bxzooo Bxzooo 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

  • sigh Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret, accepta aqua, lavit manus coram turba dicens: “ Innocens ego sum a sanguine hoc; vos videritis! ”. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alf, that's not helpful at all.
Peggy, primary sources are not helpful in this situation. That includes letters and info directly from Fox or your high school directory. We need secondary sources. Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply How else does someone prove that they attended and/or graduated from any school, college or university if a hard cover, bound, alumni directory cannot be used as a source? Your name cannot be in one if you were not a student there. Also, my name has legally been Peggy Ann Adler since 1952, so please do not remove that info from under my photo. Margaret Ann Adler "ceased to exist" when I was in the 6th grade. Both can be there, but not just the one on my birth certificate -- which is not what is on my driver's license, voter registration and all other legal documents. Also -- FYI, I do not include my month and day of birth, because that would leave me wide open to identity theft. But I do not want my age speculated -- or understated. I will be 70 in the early part of 2012. So just having 1942 or early 1942 would be sufficient and accurate. Hope I'm signing off correctly. Each time it says that my post is unsigned, so I try a new way each time -- but I always include who I am.

Best Wishes, Peggy Adler| bxzooo Bxzooo 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

Hi Sarek, What is a reliable source for my change of name when I was in the 6th grade? Report cards? My diploma? Driver's license sans date of birth? This info was originally in the text and someone removed it and put it under my photo. After that, I just tried to keep the info accurate, since that's what this dialogue is all about. Regards, Peggy Adler User=bxzooo Bxzooo 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs)

  • reply When I was the document researcher for Frank Snepp’s “Village Voice” four article series on the October Surprise, I had to transport hundreds of documents to New York City, to the Voice’ offices to go through the tedious but necessary fact check process with their fact checkers and attorney(s). The process for the lengthiest of the articles, “October Surmise”, took over a week. And every fact check point had to have a document that was a primary source document (correspondence; documents received under the Freedom of Information Act; Invoices; audio tapes of conversations; diaries; flight logs; telexes; calendar entries (i.e. Day-timer); real estate records; deeds; contracts; tax returns; credit card receipts; etc.), unless the reference in the article was to what a secondary or tertiary source had to say about the primary source, in which case, the secondary or tertiary source was allowed. Otherwise, it was not. So I am saddened that Wikipedia does not seem to accept primary source material for verification, as original source documents are the only ones that can be counted upon for accuracy. Otherwise, you are depending upon someone’s interpretation/analysis of the document and this may be misleading. Especially if the person doing the interpretation/analysis, whether a journalist, politician, prosecutor, academic, or otherwise, has an agenda. Today, before Hurricane Irene hits Shorline Connecticut, I will start to scan documents that can prove what was written in my original bio, including my 6th grade report card from P.S. 41 in Bayside, Queens, New York City, dated September 1952, which states my name as Margaret Adler and my 7th grade report card, dated September 1953 which states that my name is Peggy Adler; book reviews; articles that refer to: my attendance at Bennington College; my work at the Bronx Zoo; my marriage to Jeremy Walsh; my recognition in New Haven as an author and illustrator of children’s books; and other verification data. Hopefully, this will be proof enough to restore most,, if not all, of the text that was removed . If I can find any document from the attorney who facilitated the name change, I will scan that as well. I will continue to scan over the next days (and weeks,, if necessary) and then send the scans, as file attachments, to Killiondude for him to decided how best to deal with them. More later.

Best Wishes, Peggy Adler User|Bxzooo Bxzooo 16:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bxzooo (talk • contribs) Keep - The article is very well-sourced - I think we can safely say that this woman meets the General Notability Guideline. But please, to those participants who are related to the subject, sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~), and save poor SineBot some work. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with user:Interchangeable, now that the tripe has been removed from the article that it more than meets minimal notability.
I would also like to remind user:Bxzooo that Wikipedia is not a blog or a Facebook page... and that you need to read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Bombardment and especially Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. If you want specific help, please write to me on my talk page, or the Talk:Peggy Adler page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Adler contacted me because Hurricane Irene has rendered her incapable of continuing to support her submission of the Wikipedia article about her. Because of Irene, she lost Internet service last Saturday evening and all power on Sunday morning. Her house and the whole town of Clinton is expected to be without power for three to ten more days. She is functioning with a cell phone that has to be charged in her car and with batteries and flashlights. She has been rendered incommunicado and has been unable to continue submitting to you items from the extensive material that provides documentation of her history. These include: • Proof of change of name from Margaret Adler to Peggy Adler in the sixth grade • Book reviews of her published books •A myriad of newspaper articles which will verify all the jobs that were listed in the article as she originally submitted it • Many more items yet to be scanned. Vinestogo (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Peggy is alright in this time of crisis for many areas on the East coast. It is more than understandable that she's unable to participate in this discussion; it's not (completely) dependent on her involvement, in fact.
However, as I've told Peggy at least once, none of that information needs to be scanned. One must also keep in mind that we can only take information from reliable, third party sources (not primary sources). Killiondude (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peggy_Adler&oldid=1138217451"