Arleen McCarty Hynes : Additionally, article isn't written from an NPOV.  Urban Versis 32 KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs ) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Urban Versis 32 KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs ) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised about this.  I found her on Women in Red, and wrote the article like I have written all of my other articles.  I would like a second opinion.  A lot of research went into this.  Fortunaa ( talk ) 01:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I took out some phrases that could be interpreted as not neutral, but I'm still struggling with why it was categorized that way.  I did not know about her before doing the research, I cited books, articles, newspaper obits, etc.  There was even a dissertation on her.  Fortunaa ( talk ) 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iowa .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Here's a second opinion - the above is just one editor's viewpoint, and we can fix this.   I added some ISBN numbers to the books above.   I'll look a little more, and check again tomorrow.  Right off hand, nothing glares at me that makes this deletion fodder.  By the way, do you know an easy way to list books and have ISBN fill in the rest?   At the top of your edit window, and look at the drop-down "Templates".  Click on it and go to cite book.  Open that, and input the ISBN number, then click the little thing to the right that looks like a magnifying glass.   It should then fill the template.   Works on most ISBN numbers, and on some it doesn't.   Sure is a time saver.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fortunaa the Eugene McCarthy section is an example where I might have worded some of it differently.   But there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you did it.   Unless someone wants to change a word or two, I think that section is good like it is.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The issues the nom raises are not adequate reasons for deletion, even if you agree with them (and I don't think I do as it now is).  Is she notable?  It seems yes, and there are enough refs.  Johnbod ( talk ) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep None of that is an argument for deletion?  I would have expected a multi-year old editor like Urban Versis 32 to be aware of that and what AfD is for.  Anyways, discussing an actual topic of deletion, ie notability, I see plenty of additional sources on her.  For example: Therapists use poetry to aid self-examination ( Page 2 ) Bibliotherapy shapes nun's life ( Page 2 ) Widowed grandmothers found new life as nuns ( Page 2 ) In age of diversity, these women are moms, grandmoms and nuns So I really don't see the point of this AfD.  Silver seren C 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - not a deletion candidate.  Arleen McCarty Hynes is clearly notable just by quickly skimming the article's refs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable, no reason to delete.  Newklear007 ( talk ) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep