The result was keep. Please continue merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. The opening sentence says she is a central figure is several conspiracy theories. No information is given about the person herself. Borock ( talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant(Cause of death for a pope is very significant), and the individual's role within it is a large one(it has resulted in several articles and books), a separate article is generally appropriate." Had she only found the pope dead I would agree, not notable for her own article. This isn't the case. They lied about her and later admitted they did so. This counts as a person who can have her own article. Look at the coverage and see how often she is mentioned, she is notable enough for a standalone article. 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge. Borock makes an excellent point. Without enough independent and verifiable information about the subject herself, the limited material is relegated to the event to which she is tied. Upon more information about her becoming available, it might make sense to reconsider an independent article at that time. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep - Sister Vincenza is clearly notable. This article poses no risk of unsourced defamation in its current form, and the person has been widely commented on in the press and in books. I think it should be up to the consensus of editors whether the material is best kept as a separate article or merged somewhere else. When a merge is performed, it is usually necessary to leave out some material, and I don't see anything in this article that is excessive or an example of undue attention to the Sister's historical role. The fact that there is hardly any info on her personal life is not a reason for merge by itself. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep agree with Ed, she appears to have notability and the article is now well cited. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Please continue merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. The opening sentence says she is a central figure is several conspiracy theories. No information is given about the person herself. Borock ( talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant(Cause of death for a pope is very significant), and the individual's role within it is a large one(it has resulted in several articles and books), a separate article is generally appropriate." Had she only found the pope dead I would agree, not notable for her own article. This isn't the case. They lied about her and later admitted they did so. This counts as a person who can have her own article. Look at the coverage and see how often she is mentioned, she is notable enough for a standalone article. 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge. Borock makes an excellent point. Without enough independent and verifiable information about the subject herself, the limited material is relegated to the event to which she is tied. Upon more information about her becoming available, it might make sense to reconsider an independent article at that time. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep - Sister Vincenza is clearly notable. This article poses no risk of unsourced defamation in its current form, and the person has been widely commented on in the press and in books. I think it should be up to the consensus of editors whether the material is best kept as a separate article or merged somewhere else. When a merge is performed, it is usually necessary to leave out some material, and I don't see anything in this article that is excessive or an example of undue attention to the Sister's historical role. The fact that there is hardly any info on her personal life is not a reason for merge by itself. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep agree with Ed, she appears to have notability and the article is now well cited. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply