Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Cass

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Mistaken arrest of an 19th century seamstress falls afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. No lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Subject might be notable but am having difficulty finding RS sources to confirm it. I found one here which I will add to the article. But I don't think it's enough to pass WP:EVENT right now. Am open to reconsideration if better sources are found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article screams "one event". This might work as a one-sentence reference in the article Victorian attitudes towards working women, but not as a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and try to improve. This was a high enough stakes series if events that Parliament became involved, and it's really multiple events (ie. first the prostitution trial, then the legislative investigation, them the perjury trial) LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible argument. There are plenty of one event figures we have articles for. It depends on what that one event was and what its impact was. But we still need sources. Right now there is only one very thin source. No reliable sources = no notability = delete. See WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the source found by User:Ad Orientem is probably the most substantial reliable one easily found on a Google search, there are quite a few other reliable sources substantial enough for notability - for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The "Cass case", as it is often referred to, seems to have had a lot of coverage at the time (even if most of that has apparently never got online) and still attracts a lot of discussion - for instance, in relation to the Pall Mall Gazette's press campaigns, the disparity between expected and actual police behaviour during the case, where and when "respectable" women might or might not go unaccompanied in London's West End at the time, the indirect effects it had on the early stages of the Jack the Ripper investigation, and so on. PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Changing my !vote based on additional sources found. This does sound like it was a big deal at the time and I think any modern case that got similar coverage would have its own article. Sufficient sources now exist for it to pass WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have been improved since nomination. WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2014 (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.