Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Mabel Adamson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a person who became a teacher then a headteacher. I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Therefore this can't actually be used as an argument for !keep. JMWt (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't simply offer presence in a national dictionary of biography as a slamdunk, the ~~policy~~ guideline you've literally pointed to says so. There is no guarantee of inclusion, as it says. I say this is one of the cases when this person hasn't met the inclusion standards because they've not done anything notable.

If you want to argue on the usual basis, then kindly offer 3 significant independent reliable sources in the usual way. JMWt (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a requirement, I just said this is how we usually conduct these discussions per WP:3SOURCES JMWt (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3SOURCES is an essay and it provides no actual evidence that the alleged "Wikipedia community norms" actually exist. (An RfC would be an example of something that would be evidence of consensus.) James500 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It is not "how we usually conduct these discussions" at all. Another misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, and pace the nominator's rather boorish commentary, here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hannah Adamson. Let's see if the other visitors to this page agree that being included in a national biographical dictionary is enough. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [1] [2][3] [4]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointments in newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. James500 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC. So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 4 is slightly longer but still is only a few paras. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The ADB article is not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:JMWt, please just accept that you are arguing against longstanding consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, we've butted heads plenty of times, but I think we both have a decent understanding of our guidelines, and the whole "how we usually conduct these discussions"--you and I have been in enough AfDs to know how erroneous that is. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JMWt, you appear to be arguing that being a teacher is not significant enough to be notable, but that's not how most of our notability criteria (including the ones for this case) work. If someone has depth of coverage in multiple good sources (or in one extraordinarily good source, or as in this case both of those things) they're notable, even if you don't think what they did was significant. If someone does not have that coverage then they're non-notable even if you think what they did was significant. If a source doesn't describe any accomplishment you find significant, and instead provides depth of coverage in information about the subject that you think is insignificant, it is still in-depth; depth and significance are different things. If you want to push Wikipedia towards a more significance-based standard of notability, and away from its current emphasis on sourcing over significance, then I'm very sympathetic, but deletion nominations for people who clearly pass the existing standards are not a good path to that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
Keep She is in ADB and I found more refs to her in Trove than previously indicated. She won the University of Sydney Botany medal in her senior examinations, she was an educator and university graduate at at time when women had only just been admitted to Australian universities, the manuscripts and papers of the school she was principal of are kept in the State Library of Queensland and she is featured in them. I can fill out her article, show she is notable and add more refs later.LPascal (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (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.