Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Viktor Berthold

This was in Viktor Berthold, but is actually about Marcel Bertholds: He was born in Riga to a Livonian family. Before the outbreak of World War II he moved to Argentina, where he studied at the University of Buenos Aires to become a doctor. He graduated and moved to the United States where he worked as a doctor and scientist. After that, he moved to Sweden and eventually to Switzerland where he died in the city of Lugano.

Berthold was active in Livonian cultural organizations, and visited Latvia multiple times before his death.

Also Viktor Berthold was not the last speaker of Livonian, there is one still living in Canada: articles about her in Latvian, Finnish and Estonian.

Santiago de Liniers

Complements and correction have been done on the English version of article about Santiago de Liniers. Identity, his name is Jacques de Liniers not Jacques Marie Antoin who is his brother. A lot of addition come either from the French version of the article which is more completed and sourced by the website http://jacques-de-liniers.wifeo.com/ which assembles many historical elements.

Mistake in the biography of Salomon Dykman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Dykman

"Dykman was born in 1917 in Warsaw, Poland. He attended school at the "Hinuch" Hebrew Gymnasium, and then studied the classics at the Institute of Jewish Studies at Warsaw University."

the Institute of Classic at Warsaw University has never been a part of Institute of Jewish Studies (which, most probably, didn't even exist before the war). Please, correct it.

Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos

User:Noherzl is making wild, unsubstantiated claims on these articles (about some kind of "monetarist coup against democracy"). Needless to say such edits have been reverted (by numerous editors including myself), but the editor in question has just reverted them back each time. I've tried to reason with the editor on their talk page, but it seems this is being ignored. Perhaps sanctions need to be taken against this editor and/or the articles need to be protected. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has ceased (at least temporarily) - either the message did get through, or they just got bored... «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Watch closely... Colleagues, blogs are for debating politics; Wikipedia is for getting the facts straight. Maria Ashot (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion of page Rehmat Khan Bhatti

Dear all, this page does not seem to me at all to meet Wiki notability and/or general quality standards; rather, its been put up by someone to simply aggrandize a family member and/or tribal elder etc. I would very strongly recommend that the page be deleted/removed, please. Thank you

---

Khani100

copvio?

Much of the text at Randolph Kirkpatrick is the same as at its 2nd reference. I can't be sure which way round the copying went, but it looks more likely to have been copied into wikipedia. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Muriel Paget -- actually, an excellent biography!

Why on earth would anyone rate the page on Muriel Paget as "Start Class" and "Low Importance"?

Is it because she was a witness to Bolshevik atrocities and we would like to forget those ever occurred?

Is it because her life story reveals a moment of closeness between the UK and Imperial Russia at the time of the First World War, and references charitable acts, including acts in which the Empress Alexandra of Russia, grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, was involved?

Or is it because she was a woman?

I have read and used many articles on Wikipedia that are less important, more trivial and more poorly written -- especially in the Russian-language portal, which I am well-qualified to evaluate, but also sometimes in the French portal (which can use considerable expansion). I should also mention that I am, indeed, quite favourably impressed by the calibre of the Polish articles, their breadth and depth.

Lady Paget's life became a matter of investigation for me in connection with some professional historical research into World War I. To my surprise, you have an excellent article here on Wiki about her, yet why is it rated so unfavourably?

I have been around enough, teaching and reading, to know that there are plenty of people who for all of the reasons I enumerate above will attempt to get a piece buried or dismissed.

I should like to point out, if I may, that the contributions of women, especially at critical times during the war-plagued 20th century, are extremely important for study and generally poorly known. That does not make such articles 'less important' -- it makes them, if anything, more important.

Furthermore, the article on Lady Muriel Paget has good detail, whilst also opening up avenues for further elaboration, but rather well covering many of her impressive contributions and extraordinary travels during wartime and revolution. There is no lack of clarity in the article. Neither is there error.

I appeal to the community of users not to be too hasty in dismissing articles -- especially Biographies -- which seem to be of small consequence to you in your field. I can imagine, for example, that a Physicist might not readily discern what is important in the life and accomplishments of Lady Paget. But someone who writes military history, or the history of medicine, who happens to know which distinguished neurosurgeon served at her Anglo-Russian hospital and there advanced his expertise in neural trauma (Dr Jeffers) -- or someone who is interested in the rise of international philanthropy, not to mention the influence of women at a time when the matter of allowing women to vote was still very much a struggle even in the UK & US -- would find this article enormously useful.

Keep in mind, please, that very often areas where historical detail in even advanced textbooks is hazy yield nuggets of priceless discoveries, when one simply consults the biographical summary of an eye-witness to important events. That is when all kinds of fascinating details and connections jump out.

Meanwhile, whoever wrote up Lady Muriel Paget, kudos! Thank you! And Lady Paget -- wherever in whatever form you might be in the Cosmos -- thank you for your life of courage and initiative and relentless generosity! Maria Ashot (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Or is it because she was a woman?" Indirectly, I expect. In the grand scheme of things, her influence was pretty small (as compared to, say, Florence Nightingale or Clara Barton). And if you want to praise the originator, User:Dalkeith46 deserves the credit, as the page history reveals... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's partly a terminology problem, I'd say. In my experience, articles marked "low" in importance are the ones it's most important for Wikipedia to have. Articles marked "start" class are often well written, adequately documented and of suitable length. But the terminology is the same across all Wikipedia projects and I can't see it changing :) Andrew Dalby 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Carter-Ruck

Non notable person. The article should be deleted or merged with the law firm 'carter ruck'.

Lawyers that start law firms are ten a penny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the rubric at the top of the edit screen, it would be better simply to put a pointer from here to Talk:Peter Carter-Ruck where you've also (correctly) raised the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lansing Brown Jr. page

This article speak more about Refugio Ruiz than it does about Lansing Brown Jr, and should be either removed or totally rewritten to cover the the subject not his assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.38.21 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• That material was inserted back in 2009 by an anonymous IP. You're right, it's not about Brown at all and not relevant. I've removed it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dee Dee Myers

Hello there, I'd like to see if there is anyone here interested in reviewing a proposed improved verison of a BLP article I've researched and written. The current article is Dee Dee Myers, about the former White House press secretary, and my proposed replacement is here. Under other circumstances I would have moved my version into place already, but it happens that I work with Ms. Myers' employer, and I have prepared it with their input, so I want to be very careful about following COI guidelines. To this end I have already placed an explanatory note on the Myers Talk page and asked for assistance at COI/N, but so far I've received no response. I'm quite certain that my draft is an improvement—certainly the current version has very few citations—but I would like to get an uninvolved editor's feedback, if at all possible. Otherwise I may just move it soon. Please respond to the Myers discussion if you are so inclined. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any COI problems. The article looks balanced and well cited. I've cleaned it up a bit. I suggest that you just go ahead and copy it over the current article. FurrySings (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much! I've reviewed your changes, and they look good to me. I'll move it over now. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis Zamperini

The "Post War" section is not well cited. Many of the statements seem more like things that would be more appropriate in a revival meeting rather than in a BLP on wikipedia. I'm not sure if it's better to put 'citation needed' on these, or on the whole section, or just remove the statements all together. I suspect that there is some truth to the statements, they may just need to be rewritten to be more neutral. Catsintheattic (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rob Graham (attorney)

This bio is a vanity piece of a bankruptcy lawyer, likely written by the subject himself or his firm.DCX (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for help on W. E. B. Du Bois

The article W. E. B. Du Bois is almost ready to be submitted for consideration as a Featured Article. If anyone has time, it would be helpful to have additional reviewers at the in-progress peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical English Roman Catholics

It has been suggested that most historical persons before the 16th century should be removed from Category:English Roman Catholics - at least those who were Roman Catholics by default without a significant impact of their Catholicism on their lives, such as, say, Henry V of England. Input would be welcome at Category talk:English Roman Catholics. Huon (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox writer

It is proposed to merge {{Infobox writer}} into {{Infobox person}}; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17#Template:Infobox writer. Your views will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for assessing

Resolved

hello,

to avoid edit-warring, can someone say if Otis Redding is really B-status, or rather C-status. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)}

Picture of Ian Kershaw

Does anyone not have a picture that can be used for Ian Kershaw's page he is well known and I think it would be good to see a picture of him on his page, he is well known and a cited historian who has done many good things like completely disproving the myth that Hitler was Jewish or of Jewish ancestry for example.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

when did robert creamer die?

For everyone that can help please answer this one simple question as soon as posible. When did Robert Creamer die? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.27.141 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure he has died? His WP bio speaks of him in the present tense, and indicates he was born in 1922. Which would make him 89 yrs old, certainly an age at which he could plausibly still be living. I did a quick Google search on him (included the word "obituary") and found no mention of his death.--JayJasper (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Can another set of eyes please add their thoughts at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab#Sunni or Kharijite. An editor keeps trying to support contentious claims with unreliable sources, despite repeated warnings. I've begun dialogue on the talk page, but that hasn't paused the editor's article adjustments. I've also requested at WikiProject Islam. Thank you. ClaretAsh 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Joel Johnson

I have just posted a request on the discussion page for Joel Johnson for another editor to review a new draft I have prepared to replace the current article. As explained there, my version is improved but not radically different, and because I have been working with Mr. Johnson's firm on the article, I'm mindful of avoiding potential COI issues. I recently, successfully, sought input here for a revision to the article about Mr. Johnson's colleague, Dee Dee Myers, and so I'd like to see if there is someone here interested to offer feedback or give a thumbs up to the replacement of this one as well. Thanks for your consideration, WWB Too (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Arlene Ackerman

Arlene Ackerman was superintendent of schools in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and most recently, Philadelphia, where she departed amidst great criticism. Recently an anonymous editor 174.56.115.63 ‎ (talk · contribs · ‎ WHOIS), apparently Dr. Ackerman herself, has been editing the article, inserting what appear to be large verbatim chunks from her own resume. I contacted the anonymous editor on their talk page but got no reply. They did post an aggrieved response on the the article talk page.

I do not have the stomach for a confrontation with an influential public person, but I am sure there is someone in this project who does, so I am referring the matter here. Thanks for any help you can provide. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I should add that some of the stuff she posted is probably suitable for inclusion in the article, so some care should be taken in removing the additions. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of William Bliss Baker

Please come participate: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Bliss Baker. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible expansion of core biographies list

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to Wikipedia and this WikiProject, an article about Singaporean football legend Fandi Ahmad, which I am trying to get to GA status! Start 2012 by supporting the quest to counter systemic bias, by commenting at the ongoing peer review of this short, but interesting, article, which I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK to to edit a BLP to always slant it in a negative way?

Is it OK for someone to edit a BLP and to only add something negative, or to take out something positive, or to otherwise always slant it in a negative way? Yesterday, I reverted someone because, not for the first time, all his edits were designed to make the person look bad. I don't think this is good faith editing. Someone else put back the edits apparently because he believes it is OK for someone to edit to only make a person look bad. Who is right? FurrySings (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are. Living or dead, bio or otherwise, neutrality is the rule. A slanted article violates NPOV. Rv, & report it if necessary. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK for a person to always only add negative stuff and remove positive stuff, if right now, the BLP is slanted positively so that the last edit doesn't make the article slanted? I want to ask, is it OK for someone to be a single sided warrior on a BLP regardless of neutrality? If it's not OK, how should I stop this person? FurrySings (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No its not ok and you should report it to ANI. --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The aim is balance & neutral POV. If it's not neutral, & it keeps happening, Kumioko's entirely right. Report it. And keep rv'g. (Do beware 3RR, tho.) What's the page? With a few other interested editors, you can keep the editor's bias out without getting in trouble. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, FurrySings has a "creative" definition of what constitutes negative slanting. For example, an IP added an unsourced statement, and another editor reverted it. FurrySings reverted the reversion, without any rationale other than the complaint that the reversion was slanted negative.

I've posted every edit in question on the talk page of the article, and asked all editors to weigh in. So far FurrySings has contributed nothing to the discussion, and continues to revert, presumably thinking that this is following advice given here. I agree with Trekphiler that the proper sequence is rv, and report if necessary, what is missed is that we are already at the revert stage, and FurrySings is trying to revert unsourced material back into the article.

I hope someone will look at the actual issue, and give more specific advice to FurrySings, because I think FurrySings is continuing to revert based upon a misunderstanding. Of course, if FurrySings reports the issue to ANI, FurrySings will learn the meaning of WP:Boomerang--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the history of the Krugman page. Look at every edit Vision Thing made to the article. Every single one is to make the article more negative or less positive. Every. Single. One. FurrySings (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

♠"Look at the history of the Krugman page. Look at every edit Vision Thing made to the article. Every single one is to make the article more negative or less positive." Bias by omission is still bias. If the cited sources don't support the claims, or if the sources aren't reliable, then yes, take it out. Taking something out just because it's negative is just as wrong, however: a favorable slant is no more NPOV than a negative one.

♠That said, I did, do, & shall stand by the proposition rv & discuss should be the approach. It also appears from the talk page there Krugman has been a controversial figure on WP for some while... It appears the cites are quoting sources whose own political views conflict with Krugman's, & it's bleeding through to the page.

♠Can I suggest both sides step back from the page a day or so? Let things cool off, then discuss there? Rather than go nuclear? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, FurrySings is reverting based upon advice from you. "Everyone back off" may sound good, but could you at least retract the earlier advice, because FurrySings is claiming the right to revert (and not contributing to the talk page discussion) based upon advice from you.(or, if you don't think you gave such advice, make it clear, because FS is citing this board as rationale for reversion.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

{{od]] Don't go making out like I have any part of his behavior. Or yours. On the principle, it is rv & discuss, & that hasn't changed. Nor has my position changed: that is the right course. If there's no discussion, I disclaim any responsibility for advising based on the facts as originally presented. Nor do I accept any for the facts not being as presented. As said, I am regretting ever becoming involved in this fracas. AGF? My mistake. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for much. FurrySings asked who was right. You said and I quote "You [FurrySings] are". All you have to do is clarify that your answer was contingent on a truthful presentation of the facts. I won't even ask you to check into the facts, although one might think that's the point of this forum All I ask is that you tell FurrySings that one don't have carte blanche to revert if one lies about the situation. You may regret being involved, but your advice is the main fuel keeping this going. Choke off your fuel and the flaming stops.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

♠"your answer was contingent on a truthful presentation of the facts" Of course. If someone uses it as an excuse, however, I disclaim any responsibility for it or, indeed, any ability to do anything about it.

♠"I won't even ask you to check into the facts" Had the page in question been linked to in the first place, I would not have given the blanket statement I did; having looked at the edits in question, I wouldn't have necessarily agreed. Which is why I say POV is inappropriate for both sides, here. I get the sense the sources have a strong POV, & people are using that to introduce a POV: "The source says it, we can put it in." Well, no. Sourced bias is still bias, & negative commentary isn't necessarily grounds for deletion.

♠As said, neutrality is, must be, the goal. Take a hypothetical: Would we include an accusation Lloyd George is a baby-killer, even if it was sourced & from a reputable paper? (In Berlin. In 1916...) I think not. Would we delete mention that Hitler arranged the mass murder of Jews? I think not. Is this case that simple or clear? No. My brief glance at the sources does seem to suggest this is akin to what's happening. The result isn't entirely neutral on either side. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious amount of unknown importance articles

I've been doing some poking around from the military biography task force and discovered that you guys have over 350,000 articles of unknown importance total for your wikiproject (almost 30,000 from the military section alone). I think there is a serious backlog here. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Does'nt anyone else think this is serious? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not really. I think we have more important things to do for the moment, like improving existing bios (and rating them once done), or creating one of the myriad ones that are still missing (and rate them once created... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just seems to me like it shouldn't take too much time to give an importance rating to an article that one is working on. (I also just discovered that there are over 118,000 articles in this project which lack an assessment. In case someone thought this constitutes a backlog as well). 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, what's the point of having an importance rating in the first place if its not used? Either this backlog of unrated importance articles should be taken care of or the importance tag should be gotten rid of. (No point in having it if its not used.) 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If this bothers you then start clearing out the backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize how long it would take one person to do over a quater million articles? I was hoping to get at least a few others in this project interested in this problem. Besides there are thirty five people in this project and they could pitch in a bit, since this is supposed to be their project. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody cares. So I guess I won't either. Since I'm leaving Wikipedia it won't matter. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo in the article on Ruy Diaz Melgarejo

"In 1855, Melgarejo returned to Asunción ..." - This date seem highly unlikely.

Too much info?

I don't wanna be accused of owning an article, so I wondered if someone else would take a look at the edits made recently to Lowkey's page. To me the recent edits seem a bit too in depth but I don't have much experience editing biographies and musicians. Other opinions and edits are welcome. Tony2Times (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Mention of his "feuds" might be merited, but so much? Not from where I stand. And his views on everything from Zionism to Arab Spring? Seriously? If he was Kissinger or Madeleine Albright, maybe. Or even Bill Buckley or Walter Cronkite. Otherwise, really not. Junk it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Those additions are totally over the top. Go back to the much shorter version from 30 December. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

John Beddington misrepresentation

Could somebody familiar with misrepresentation, libel, etc. comment at Talk:John Beddington#Fukushima incident please? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The name

HI to whoever writes these Hare played for the Pikiao Warriors not the Piako Warriors this has come to my attention as Hare is a wider family member and i also play for Pikiao so could you please correct this as Pikiao is also the name of our tribe thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikiao21 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please address this on the talk page of the specific article in question. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

David Gries, include picture? (CC-A 3.0 picture found)

David Gries does not carry a picture yet.

This search: [1] has revealed a picture that, according to the page legalese, is CC-by-A 3.0.

cite: Material on these pages developed by Owen Astrachan is ©Owen Astrachan, is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0722274, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. We gratefully acknowledge additional funding from IBM via an IBM Faculty Award.

BTW, one level up there's a picture of him without that paint in his face :-)

--87.175.25.165 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominic of Evesham and post-nominals

There's an interesting discussion here which relates to biographies. It would be great to have some wider input. Thanks for any attention you can give it. --John (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pearce Robinson

Hi. I answered a help request at Talk:Pearce Robinson, and, in the process, I wondered about the notability of this article. I've not much experience of judging Bios for notability, so, since the talk page lists the article as a member of this project, I thought I'd ask for some feedback here. Sorry if my question sounds overly dumb for someone with as many edits as me, but this is outside my "comfort zone" for making snap judgements, so comments very welcome. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just adding a courtesy note so that people don't waste time on looking at this because I asked here - I decided to AFD. Hope I didn't miss something obvious. Begoon ^talk 09:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Woodman

The Stewart Woodman entry should have the following caveat removed, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". While I know Stewart personally, the posting is fact-based and written without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlerman423 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please address this on the Stewart Woodman talk page first, per this page's guidelines (see top of page, 4th item). Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

William S. Clark

Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let people involved in this project know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. The article is a part of WikiProject Biography. Clark was an American educator who helped establish Hokkaido University. His significance to East/West international relations of that period would, I think, make him a good FA candidate. So far, the nomination has not attracted much attention and I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible deletion of article Jessica Ahlquist

Jessica Ahlquist is a 16-year old student recently controversial for having a religiously-oriented banner removed from her school.

Ms Ahlquist may be a "person notable for only one event" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1E ) and thus fail notability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE ).

Additionally, though I was not able to find any specific guidelines for this, as a 16-year-old minor, it may be appropriate to treat Ms Ahlquist differently than we would an adult.

-- 186.221.134.210 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)