Talk:Margaret Downey
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | A fact from Margaret Downey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February. |  |
The article is not done in an impartial way. There should be some mention about the 'criticism' faced by her and her actionsWorldplayer (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Worldplayer
- Sure, if you can find reliably sourced criticism of Downey feel free to add it to the article. I was surprised when drafting this I expected that there would be material but didn't find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Person
I think that this is required. Basic missing information:
- Birth date/place
- marital status
- Number of children (at least 1 son to be refused entry to the Scouts!)
- Education
Cosnahang (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC) PS as an evangelical I think the content is NPOV
- I consider adding the infobox but unfortunately at this point I haven't been able to locate those personal details. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If any of you wants to add "personal details," just email Margaret. I'm sure she'd be happy to fill you in on any reasonable questions. She's a wonderful lady, and very personable. Her email is president@atheistalliance.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.210.153 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly I think that would count as original research! :) Cosnahang (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Vanity Page
I'm a bit unclear why this page isn't considered a vanity page. This person was head or served on the boards of a few very minor nonprofit organizations, for which no notable or noted goals were accomplished. She served as plaintiff to a historically insignificant court case that she ultimately lost. Her noted genetic / racial background has almost no relevance to the rest of the article. The reference websites listed for her are either stories that include a minor quote from her, minor stories on minor appearances she made as head of the above-mentioned organizations, press releases for her personal projects, or fansites which are certainly not without bias (and who knows how much personal influence she had in creating or maintaining them). She has no advanced degrees, she has written no books or critically-acclaimed papers, she lacks any special field of expertise or knowledge, she has not served on any significant government, corporate or NPO bodies or boards. In short, her listed "accomplishments" are things that any number of people can claim to have experienced but haven't raised them to the level of a Wikipedia page.
If there is no on-line criticism to be found of the article subject, I think that's more likely to be due to the fact that she's just not a significant freethought or other celebrity figure rather than because she has no detractors. I would vote to delete this page unless something a bit more noteworthy could be found and posted to justify the entry. Besamo805 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. From this side of the pond it is difficult to gauge her importance on the US atheist scene if such exists. Others have had articles for less.
Sure, if you can find reliably sourced criticism of Downey feel free to add it to the article. I was surprised when drafting this I expected that there would be material but didn't find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the lack of criticism because she is beneath folks radar so not being notable enough to criticise?