Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss (2nd nomination)

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 (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary DeMoss

I hope Phil doesn't block me for this one... anyway, I've reviewed Mary DeMoss and concluded that it doesn't come close to meeting our verifiability requirements. There is not a single reliable, third-party source that could in any way be conceived to be primarily about this person. Google Books discusses several DeMoss families, but not a single mention of this particular individual. Google Scholar has exactly 1 hit, which appears to be a false match for someone else (it's related to United Methodism, not Scientology). There are some hits on the Google News archives but most of them aren't about this person, but about other people with the same name. You have to go down to about the 9th hit for even a passing mention. Mary DeMoss plus Scientology registers only 3 Google News hits, all passing mentions.

If you believe that this article should be kept, please either provide further third-party reliable sources that I was unable to find, or explain why 3 passing mentions in a local newspaper is sufficient for someone to have a Wikipedia article about them. *** Crotalus *** 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I found some reliable sources right in the current article. Some of those citations are from reliable newspapers and appear to be from the news (not opinion) pages. And she's been involved in notable stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, first nomination near-unanimous keep, no significant change since then - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand this new fascination for some editors of using "proof by Google" to prove anything since none of those are cited in the article. The FA seems to have more than enough references. AndroidCat (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are there to prove verifiability. The notability is proven by the verifiable statements in the article. She's a founding member of a notable organization. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 24 December 2008 (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.