Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Jones Adams

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Jones Adams

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

apparently not notable.WP is an encyclopedia , not a site for WP:MEMORIALs. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this is an example of being non-notable, especially with mentions in multiple academic texts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an early pioneer of black women's associations in the United States and part of a long line of civil rights in the country. As a historical figure, she passes GNG as being written about in several RS. Her speech about "Social Purity" was important and discussed in several sources. I'm going to add the other sources I found right now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true that as written when nominated this articles was horrible, at times I believe including word for word quotes from 1920s sources that were just plain unreadable, either that or paraphrases that muddled what the source text said to make it barely inteligible. I cut out some of the unworkable lines. She clearly is notable, even if it still is a sub-standard written article. AFD is not for removing poorly written articles, but those on unnotable people. We still keep overly sentimental and memorializing articles on people who are notable. I might remove the line about her death, it adds nothing to the article, but that does not change the fact that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the organizations she was a part of almost certainly deserve their own articles. It is possible that some of the red links currently in the article should actually lead to redirects. I have to admit I am unfamiliar with most turn of the 19th to 20th century era women's organizations, with the exception of a few in Utah and the two main national ones, which I think had merged by 1900 anyway. Women's organization history of that era needs a lot more coverage in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I am sure you are aware DGG, these social clubs were an important part of the anti-lynching movement, as well as suffrage and education for women.[1] That she was the leader of the Boston Branch of the NAACP [2], that she was a founder of the Women’s Era Club and a presiding officer of the National Federation of Colored Women’s meeting [3] show she was a respected leader. That there are articles written about her in The Crisis [4] also shows notability. I have no access to early issues but perhaps someone does and the source clearly states she is discussed. SusunW (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2015 (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.