Deletion of Nellie Pratt Russell

Comment: into articles on sororities as appropriate, '''delete''' articles on these individuals.  I do not see the "extensive coverage" from reliable secondary sources as reuired by WP:N.  I note that Harriet Josephine Terry, Sarah Meriweather Nutter, Joanna Mary Berry Shields, Lavinia Norman, Anna Easter Brown, Marie Woolfolk Taylor, Lillie Burke, Beulah Burke and Margaret Flagg Holmes are all referenced solely from AKA publications, and many of the others may be as well (it's a bit harder to tell in some cases).  One single book seems to provide the only source meeting  for any of these articles, I think the notability of all these people is confined to their founding of AKA, and thus I think ought to be merged into that article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I am sorry, did I miss the part where the sorority itself was up for AfD?  No one gets a pass on  by association.  What elements of  does anyone suggest these individuals fulfill, and through what reliable sources, exactly?  Fails , .    CJ's suggestion that an effort be made to determine if any of these founders are independently notable is a good one.  This AfD has five days to run; go for it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:V)

Comment: Accusing someone of  violations is a violation of , and . If this issue deserves wider attention, the talk page is the right way to go
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:CIVIL||WP:AGF)

Comment: Going to college, helping found a sorority, getting married, having kids, having hobbies and teaching do not appear to satisfy  . Each person should have substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. No such demonstrations of notability are provided. They sound like fine women, but that is just not enough to justify an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: and nix any page on the founders while we're at it. They deserve brief name-checks in the article on the sorority, nothing more. We appreciate hard work, but  is not a reason to keep an article. I also see no compelling reason to separate these substantially similar biographies for individual consideration. If there are one or two with individual notability claims beyond this (and I don't see it in the first five) they may be singled out for retention in this AFD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:EFFORT)