Deletion of Mary Bidwell

Comment: Per  simply not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Norton, please do try to learn a bit of a bit of basic good manners and to |assume good faith. This is not a bad faith nomination: it was a good faith nomination of an unreferenced article, one of dozens and dozens of unreferenced stubs created on older people by editors who seem to entirely reject . I tried to draw attention to this problem by tagging the articles for improvement, but the tags got deleted; I tried to preserve the info in the under-referenced articles by merging them, and it was only when all other efforts were blocked that I nominated them at AfD.  That's not revenge, it's the last choice option for dealing with unreferenced stubs which cannot be improved, and this one had existed for 4 years; it was tagged as unreferenced in the summer, and has been edited by all the editors who claim the greatest expertise in this area. I assumed that if there were refs, they would have supplied them at some time in the last 4 years.Now to your references.  First, can you explain why three of them for which provide a retrieval date do not provide the URL from which you retrieved them, so that they can be verified? Secondly, even if a http://www.bidwellhousemuseum.org/Articles/mary_electa_bidwell.htm local museum website is a reliable source, is it really evidence of notability that  she gets a writeup in a website on her ancestor's house? Doesn't seem very independent to me. Thirdly, less than half of the 591-word NYT article is devoted to Bidwell, which is hardly substantial coverage. Maybe the other refs are more substantial, but there is no way of knowing unless you provide the links ... and so far, although notability is closer than when I made the nomination it is not yet established
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:BIO)