Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moll Dyer

: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 as per consensus. Outside of the nominator, there is no call for the article's deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

===Moll Dyer===

:{{la|Moll Dyer}} ([{{fullurl:Moll Dyer|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moll Dyer}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No reliable sources, tagged as needing them since 2007 with no improvement. Only sources that turn up show extremely trivial mention of a nonnotable local legend. Would need multiple RELIABLE (not some random local ghost website) sources with NON-TRIVIAL coverage to establish any sort of notability at all to even be mentioned in another article. Clearly does not deserve an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - there's not much in Google [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Moll+Dyer&aq=f&oq=%22] but there may be something in Weird Maryland. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Keep - see Matt Lake, Mark Moran, and Mark Sceurman, Weird Maryland, (2006 Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.), ISBN 14-02739060, found at [http://books.google.com/books?id=L0iv57e2mXEC&pg=PA24&dq=%22Weird+Maryland%22+%2B+%22Moll+Dyer%22 Weird Maryland at Google Books]. Accessed May 19, 2009. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So a short mention in a book series that's not known for being particularly reliable is enough for you to justify having a full Wikipedia article? That's arguably enough to be mentioned (briefly) in an article on a broader topic, but having a whole article to oneself requires a lot more than just one source. DreamGuy (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears that bearian has found suitable evidence of notability, although I'd be happier if there were a bit more. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge. Keep. Some more sources:[http://somd.com/news/headlines/2008/8673.shtml][http://www.somdnews.com/stories/101106/entepeo170411_32098.shtml][http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/10/20041010-102416-3747r/][http://books.google.com/books?id=8vkPpxK37AkC&printsec=frontcover#PPA97,M1][http://www.somd.lib.md.us/tobacco_to_tomcats/tobacco_to_tomcats.pdf]. There's a suggestion the Blair Witch was based on her:[http://books.google.com/books?id=MK-onYxMjT4C&printsec=frontcover#PPA100,M1]. Her legend has some notability, but not much outside Maryland. I'd say a definite one to merge, but I'm not sure where to merge to. Fences and windows (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I added another link to a book she is mentioned in, Google books having a preview of those three pages dedicated to her. She has enough notable references. Dream Focus 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:I've added in some sources, which I believe now properly assert the notability of this legend. Fences and windows (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Blair which project and good references are enough to assert notability. Licit Ivy (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:— Licit Ivy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

::Ouch. ;) Licit Ivy (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. "some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)". DreamGuy made this edit summary when removing much of the information I'd added. I am not a "dedicated AFD keep voter", and what I added wasn't "garbage". This kind of attitude and personal attack is not acceptable. You've completely failed to assume that my edits were made in good faith, and you've broad brushed me as an inclusionist. If you care to check my contributions to AfD you'll see that the majority support deletion, but I also make an effort to rescue some pages. Why is Witchcraft in American culture not an acceptable source? Is Chesapeake Family Magazine a terrible source for reporting the interesting variation in the legend, when it gives its own source? I don't see any reason for such an aggressive defence of your nomination. Fences and windows (talk) 16:58, 23 May 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.