Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyce Elaine Roop

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Elaine Roop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable lawyer/activist. Borderline speedy candidate with what's there now. Contested WP:PROD. Only reference is a typical obituary which basically just gives her résumé. Original author is indefblocked for spamming. Wknight94 ^talk 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance. Tricky. Agree she draws almost a complete blank on Google, but then she died 15 years ago, so it isn't a great test. The obit comes from a very significant paper, not some backwoods weekly. Google Books turns her up at a Congressional Hearing. It's marginal but i don't think the article is doing any harm, notability is established from (admittedly only one) very reliable source, and someone researching her using hardcopy sources may find more. Better to keep i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meetWP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper If you have ever lived downwind from a coal-fired power plant, you would appreciate a woman lawyer who fights acid rain, as I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyMinder (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Needs a stub tag, but keep it. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Several people found it worth editing. The photograph was deleted: Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a single source, and does not meed WP:BIO. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This single source (a news obituary in the Boston Globe) is good enough for me. wp:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". I consider this to be substantial enough depth of coverage to make this unnecessary. As Hamiltonstone points out, print sources may also exist (which could be used to improve the article), but I don't consider them necessary for establishing notability. Buddy431 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (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.