Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay

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 snow keep. As this is still linked from the main page, I don't think we want the AfD banner on the top of the page. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Imlay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is argued (on this article's talk page) that the subject of this Featured Article, recently seen on the Main Page, is non-notable. The basis for this argument seems to be that the people commenting have not themselves heard of Fanny Imlay. Others claim that the article is "the most well written pile of boring shit that I have ever read." And so on and so forth. To dampen down the discussion on the talk page, I am taking this matter here to AfD. I am myself, incidentally, of no doubt at all that the subject of this article is notable. There is sufficient scholarly attention paid to her to make this quite clear. And that, in the end, is what matters--and all that matters. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as nominator. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion/keep article. There is a peer-reviewed, scholarly biography of this person in addition to peer-reviewed journal articles. Scholars deem this person to be notable, therefore this article easily passes WP:NOTABILITY muster. Wadewitz (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my arguments on the talk page. Clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 297-page book on the subject clearly establishes notability per WP:NN Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:BIO and the arguments on the article's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of you people obviously unfamiliar with AFD should read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. The outcomes here are keep and delete. "oppose" is ambiguous. It doesn't say what outcome you are opposing. Don't state things in negative form anyway. We do things straightforwardly here at AFD: Say which outcome you want, not what you "oppose". You might also read what Wikipedia:Speedy keep has to say about nominating recently featured articles and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Another AFD maxim that you need to learn is Don't nominate things for deletion when you yourself don't want them deleted. Let the people who do want them deleted do the AFD nomination. Let them scratch their own itches. At the moment, you're all doing exactly the sort of disruption that we normally turf out of AFD on its ear. Featured article writers should not be making disruptive AFD nominations. We have vandals, jokers, and nitwits for that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this may be a minor historical character but she's a well-researched and studied minor character, eminently worth an article. The debate on the talk page is ridiculous. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the debate on the talk page is ridiculous; of course it passes WP:NOTABILITY. And of course it's not boring; it provides insight about some of the issues her mother discussed regarding feminism and the education of women. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per various comments above. Clearly notable by our standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per talk page discussion. Her notability stems from her relatives that actually did something notable, and mentioned that they had a sister/daughter/cousin or were introduced through. . . Fanny should be merged in with those relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.188 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep easily meets the WP:GNG--seriously, academics were writing about her over a hundred years after her death. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per various comments above. heather walls (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since a biography establishes notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article clearly passes GNG. GRAPPLE X 18:23, 17 May 2012 (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.