Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Hegarty

: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 no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Diane Hegarty]]=

:{{la|Diane Hegarty}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Diane Hegarty}})

The only claim of notability is Hegarty being a co-founder of the Church of Satan organization. Her role is listed on the Church of Satan page and this article adds very little beyond that fact to Wikipedia (apart from being an administrator, copy editor and mother). I can see no evidence of awards or an "enduring historical record" in order to meet WP:N. The page should be deleted rather than merged as there is nothing of importance to add to the main Church of Satan article. Ash (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:(note) The sources added do not appear to address notability as mentions of her in the press only confirm her role as already described in the nomination.—Ash (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • weak delete There are a lot of sources out there and it is possible that the totality will be enough. There is for example, this article which focuses on her divorce [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0ccSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5PkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2048,818598&dq=diane-hegarty+satan]. But right now I'm not sure if there's enough. It might make more sense to have her name redirect to a section in her former husband's article where we can use some of this sourced content rather than redirecting to the Church where information about her won't reasonably fit in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that co-founding a worldwide religion that has tens of thousands of followers would be notable enough. I say keep it. bruce (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2009

:— 98.203.166.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Bruce. There is plenty of documentation out there. She is important in her own right, not just as a bit on the Church of Satan page. She should have the name Diane LaVey restored to the entry, as this was the name was known by for decades, and that she used even before the period of the Church of Satan. She should not be only in the Church of Satan page, as the leadership of that organization after she left has been very hostile to her, and tried as much as possible to write her out of it's history. There are conflicting versions of events, which cannot be reconciled in one entry. Also her early association with Anton LaVey, the setting up of his Magic Circle gatherings, etc. were all before the Church of Satan existed. Her association and adventures with many celebrities is also outside any Church of Satan discussion.

:—Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoZ (talk • contribs)

:— HugoZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

  • For now, weak merge and redirect to Church of Satan. For now. There's some stuff out there about her, and I think if I were me I'd want to see more before I said keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 24 September 2009 (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.