Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Brown (criminal)

Margaret Brown (criminal)

Aside from having a career tthat spanned several yaers, there seems to be nothing notable about this criminal. In fact the crimes described in the article appear to be extremely mundane. A ni Mate 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is really no need to include articles for every small-time criminal there ever was. This one is completely non-notable.Wikigonish (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteabsolutely not notable.Is this how 2.5M is achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next? Litterbugs and jaywalkers? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. There seem to be a few uses of her as an example of an "incorrigible" criminal, but not as a notable one (other than to various urban police departments). --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how this is notable, unless sources can be found that are primarily devoted to her. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and close per WP:SNOW - this is utterly un-notable, as far as I can see. Brilliantine (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral till I have time to look properly at new sources. Brilliantine (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources still do nothing to assert her notability, other than discussing her still rather petty crimes. A ni Mate 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy close - I'm shivering! Asenine 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article, it seems that her criminal career was mentioned in several independent, published sources, which suggests that she is notable and the report of her career verifiable. Nor is she notable only in connection with a single incident: she was a notorious thief for more than fifty years. Notability by our standards does not fade with the passage of time; if she was mentioned in several books in the 1920s she's still notable now. I don't see any policy this article fails. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't have copies of any of the references in the article but many books contain biographical information about non-notable people - often so the reader gets a feel for what it was like to be an "ordinary" person. Jll (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, what a woman! Seriously, the article passes WP:RS and WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 2 refs from 1884 New York Times articles, One gives substantial coverage to her 50 year career as a criminal. The reported book citations are harder to track down, but unless they are mere directory listings, would in combination with the main NY Times article, satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've personally met people who are lazy enough to give up employment in exchange for a lifetime of petty theft. Nothing encyclopedic about that. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So only people you respect are notable? Heh. --Rividian (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly certain he's saying career petty theft doesn't equal encyclopedic content. A ni Mate 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple reliable sources. I should note that the delete !vote immediately above mine is not a valid reason for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]