Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Brunson Marks

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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Brunson Marks

[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)

Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. W C M_email 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sharing 4meter4's sense that inclusion in biographical reference works is a reasonable heuristic for encyclopedic relevance, I find the additional sourcing discovered since the deletion discussion was first opened persuasive. To the sentiment that Marks's position wasn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, my impression from WP:GNG is that notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. Coverage from biographers/journalists/historians/etc. is what confers notability, whether on a king or club woman. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions are not indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a mention or what is coverage in certain cases is probably a matter unlikely to achieve universal consensus; to at least explain why I see significant coverage, I'll mention that I find persuasive this essay's observation: An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. A short obituary about an unelected politician in the Los Angeles Times doesn't convey as much significance as an obituary of the same length about a club woman like Jane Marks does, as such figures are less likely in general than politicians to get such obituaries at all. Also, WP:OHW guides my reading of the Women of the West entry; as a biographical dictionary, it has a compressed format that conveys more information in fewer words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the already added/pointed out sources, many more exist. I found several in Newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia library after multiple revised searches, given that she was known or written about under different names, more sources are likely to exist. Not all sources need to be SIG/in-depth coverage. But along with a few in-depth sources present in the article already, these brief mentions indicate she was a known figure regardless of the significance of her work or positions. X (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article subject appears to have been a pillar in her community, but she is not notable. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The LA Times is a death announcement, not a full obit, and the rest of the sources that have been uncovered since the discussion began are either brief mentions or about the subject's family, not herself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 May 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.