Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ingalls (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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ingalls

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

Delete or merge with Laura Ingalls Wilder or Little House on the Prairie -- 2nd nomination but there is simply no non-derivative notability in her own right. Sorry. Quis separabit? 01:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an actual person, not just a character in a TV show. The article includes several reliable sources with substantial coverage of her life, satisfying WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include characterization. Although it seems to be WP:INHERENT, she passes WP:BIO and shows high significance in the novelization.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with others above. Passes WP:BIO. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources provided to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because this seems acceptable and older subjects such as these can be considered notable if verified and sourced. Pinging past commenters Canuckle and Clarityfiend. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That the New York Times ran a piece on the cause of her blindness pretty much ends the notability debate for me. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (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.