Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pearcey
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Pearcey
Rippercruft. The article proclaims its subject's own non-notability in the opening paragraph: her only importance in history is being "sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper", and then concludes by admitting there's no evidence for any claim of such a connection. wikipediatrix 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Thousands of pages have been written about this woman. She got global press last year (previously discussed in this article but removed by editor Victrix for reasons I never found convincing).Uucp 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of pages have been written about practically anyone and everyone remotely mentioned by anyone in the course of Ripper study, but that doesn't mean they all need an article. Pearcey apparently hasn't even been considered notable enough to get her own subsection in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, where she is dealt with in one single sentence at the very bottom of the page. wikipediatrix 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of pages have been written about practically anyone and everyone remotely mentioned by anyone in the course of Ripper study, but that doesn't mean they all need an article. Pearcey apparently hasn't even been considered notable enough to get her own subsection in
- That evidence could demonstrate just as easily that the discussion at List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects should be expanded. In May of 2006, when she got her most recent round of press, Mary Peacy was discussed in the Daily Mail (London), Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland), The Mirror (Ireland and U.K. editions), The Herald (Glasgow), Belfast Telegraph, Hobart Mercury (Australia), The Independent (London), and the AAP Newsfeed (Brisbane), some more than once. I would be glad to e-mail you the text of every one of the articles. I would argue that anybody who receives such press for /anything/ is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The Ripper connection should not make Pearcey less so. Uucp 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That evidence could demonstrate just as easily that the discussion at
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sentence says it all: Her only importance in history is that the crime is sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper. non-notable and fails ]- Strong Keep I think her possibility of being the Ripper is very very weak, and probably only considered due to the irony and novelty value of the Ripper possibly being a woman. That said, the crime she actually was convicted of and has hanged for was sensational at the time, was covered in all the papers, and she was very famous as a murderess. In fact, Madame Tussauds wax museum in London even made a wax figure of her. She still shows up in famous-crimes and unsolved-mysteries books to this day. Strong keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently contradicts what you're saying. Can you get sources for what you're saying, and put them in the article? wikipediatrix 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more references and expanded the article somewhat (as has Uucp). Even more references than these could be found with some serching: the crime and trial were covered extensively in newspapers at the time. I must say I don't see what was contradictory in the original article though, unless you count the bizarre line "Her only importance in history is that the crime is sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper." which is untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed the contradictory statement to which I refer. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more references and expanded the article somewhat (as has Uucp). Even more references than these could be found with some serching: the crime and trial were covered extensively in newspapers at the time. I must say I don't see what was contradictory in the original article though, unless you count the bizarre line "Her only importance in history is that the crime is sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper." which is untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently contradicts what you're saying. Can you get sources for what you're saying, and put them in the article? wikipediatrix 13:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Andrew Lenahan. The article in its current updated state is a great addition to Wikipedia. I suggest those who had an opinion of delete take another look and reevaluate their position. DrunkenSmurf 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-documented, verifiable, article on subject notable enough to have received more than 100 years worth of multiple, non-trivial coverage in books, newspapers, etc. Scorpiondollprincess 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep apparently well-referenced article, don't see what all the fuss is about. WilyD 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. Now that the article has been greatly expanded and improved, and no longer makes the "only importance in history" claim, I find it suitable. Given this new information that has been presented, she still deserves a more detailed mention in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. wikipediatrix 18:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- 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.