Talk:Margaret Holloway

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Nov 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to God Didn't Give Me a Week's Notice.

Drug use[edit]

I reverted drug "use" to drug "abuse". Whether she uses drugs is not in question - she takes perscription medication for schizophrenia. The abuse is related to illegal substances. -- StAkAr Karnak 11:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Margaret uses any illegal drugs. She recently came into a little money and used it to buy me a present. That does not sound like any addict behavior I have heard of !!! Maggie McLean 11-11-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.140.241 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vital dates[edit]

I believe I heard that Ms. Holloway passed away, perhaps in late 2006 or earlier this year. I don't have sufficient confidence in my recollection to suggest a specific edit, but perhaps the author of the page could check into it and update the page if appropriate. Dmargulis 08:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors of her demise have been exaggerated. She is alive and about, still living in New Haven. --Needscurry 11:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I don't see much discussion on the deletion page. There is a single claim that the page does not meet the standards for notability. This page seems to contain a lot of information, however. Does the information not have valid sources? What, if any, of the information is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia? The redirect to God Didn't Give Me a Week's Notice is a feeble reduction--it cuts out all of the information. It seems ridiculous, in my opinion, to have a wikipedia page about a documentary about a person, but no wikipedia page about the person itself. Shouldn't it be the other way around? If the information does not fit the standards of wikipedia then the information should be removed but I think the "solution" of redirecting this page to the documentary's page is a bit absurd. I think these points need to be explained in a debate. If they are adequately addressed, I have no problem with deleting the offending information, or the page if it comes to that. Cazort (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the redirection wasn't warranted, you may want to take it to deletion review. I've reverted it back to a redirect for now (as per the AFD result). Kesac (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with AfD -- restoring article[edit]

I disagree with the outcome of the AfD, which shows little editor participation, not enough to establish consensus. I had no trouble finding sources to establish notability:

[1] (ny times article, mentions the film in a couple paragraph,s but the article is primarily about Holloway)
[2] (hartford courant article, not public access, but primarily about Holloway, not the film)

I think the combination of these two sources, which are written directly about her, and the documentary (which was directly about her and which has been summarized / discussed in numerous reliable sources) solidly establish notability. The page also was blanked and redirected--and much of the content (biographical in nature) was deleted (not included on the page for the film). Do people think it's reasonable to restore / reconstruct this page as a page of its own? Cazort (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]