Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Helen Clark

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 No consensus. Despite lots of discussion, there are preciously few !votes. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be a consensus to delete at this point. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Helen Clark

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:AUTHOR. No depth of coverage in independent sources. Article indicates this was a non-notable academic, missionary and author. References cited cannot be corroborated. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Both the speedy deletion and PROD tags were removed without much explanation. ""A7. No indication of importance." (non-notable missionary) and "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (advertisement for a private library collection, possibly to attract more donors)." The page was created during an edit-a-thon, by a graduate student who got paid for creating it, thus there is a clear conflict of interest. The article fails to explain how or why this missionary would be notable at all. Google results don't help either, as the name shows results about a journalist on Twitter and a professional from Canada on LinkedIn. Nothing on Google Books either. Only one mention on Google Scholar, which is just her name with two other missionaries, but nothing else. She sounds like an insignificant private person, in other words.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. WP:BLP applies to this namespace, not just to article space. So, regardless of the merits of the case, can we avoid pejorative language like "a nobody", please? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment. I've changed it to "insignificant private person." Do you like this better? I wasn't trying to be pejorative with "nobody" (it sounds descriptive/neutral to me); just trying to make my point.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator, you claim that the "References cited cannot be corroborated", but I would like to see some specification of what attempts you have made to corroborate them. --Hegvald (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the biographical facts found in the first paragraph and marked as "citation needed" can be found in the finding aid of the papers in the VAnderbilt special collections. However, the Kennedy book cited does not appear in the WorldCat database, meaning that it isn't listed in any of the 70,000 libraries that contribute to that database. Nor could I find it listed in the catalog of the National Library of Brazil nor the National Library of Portugal. (There is a chance that the citation is somehow in error, but I did try variations and keywords.) For the first book listed, there are two copies in WorldCat -- one in Texas and one in the Netherlands. So finding a copy in order to corroborate the data is going to be fairly difficult. It would be great to have one or two citations that are easier to find. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would not a person whose letters are stored in the Vanderbilt University Special Collections be notable? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would. I want to look at this one a little more thoroughly, missionaries are often notable, but lack a "constituency" among Wikipedia editors.ShulMaven (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the papers being stored at Vanderbilt are a good indication of notability. It is expensive to house and manage personal archives, so libraries only take on those that they think have some historic significance -- unless, of course, the papers come with a hefty donation of $$$, which isn't known in this case. The problem here is that we can't see the papers, can't find the books, and can't find other resources. I consider this a weak keep based on "circumstantial evidence" but wish that there were more visible resources. LaMona (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and that's why I think this article may look an advertisement to attract further donations for this private library. That wouldn't be a real problem if she had achieved something substantial...but I don't see that at all here. There are other resources in that special collection about more prominent people though. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to explain one of my objections.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s I suspect that you don't have much experience with libraries and archives, because they definitely do not use Wikipedia to try to attract new donations of papers. In fact, they turn away more offers of papers than they accept, choosing only those that fulfill a research function. The Vanderbilt archive gathers material on Latin America, and the Clark archives are one of the few that have full finding aids. This means that the archive considers this collection important enough to have put considerable work into it. I'm afraid that your arguments aren't fact-based. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page from the Society of American Archivists about donating to archives. [1]. LaMona (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you have failed to demonstrate if she achieved anything significant at all in her career/life. Being in a private library collection is not an argument for notability, as far as I know.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed that above when I said that we do not have resources that are verifiable online, which creates a dilemma. One can assume good faith and accept the offline resources, or not. The answer lies in an archive of documents and a couple of books that I definitely do not have access to. I am willing to give the author of the article the benefit of the doubt. YMMV. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even about the references. It's just that she does not appear to have achieved anything substantial in her life. She was a mere teacher/missionary. That does not make her notable IMO. This is turning into a pointless conversation and I hope other editors vote for 'keep' or 'delete.' But those who'd like to keep it ought to explain why they believe she is notable...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is referenced and the subject's papers have been accepted by a reputable institution. The case for deletion seems insufficient; I would like to see an argument for deletion that actually discusses the content of the references. --Hegvald (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She appears to have achieved nothing significant in her life/career. I don't see how having her papers kept in a private library, perhaps thanks to a donation, would make her notable. The references look very obscure to me btw--most of them are not even in English...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the references is completely irrelevant. --Hegvald (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes them even more obscure...But really, what has she achieved? I find it curious as nobody has been able to say...Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the finding aid which unfortunately does not allow copying (argh!), but "...she was principle at the Colegio Americano in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul... where she took the lead in community service at the time of the disastrous flood of 1964 when the school took in, fed, and clothed over 100 disaster victims. She received the highest honor from the City Council of Porto Alegre...The letters provide first-hand accounts of Latin-American foods, behaviors, language and customs of the people and the politics of the times." That's all I've got, since I don't have access to the books or other materials. LaMona (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The finding aid was written by the private library university, wasn't it? If so, it reinforces my point about advertising, as it is not an independent source (both in terms of the subject, but also the editor(s) who have created the page). To be honest, I don't think helping 100 people during a flood is notable. My grandmother did that too, and I don't think she should have a page. You suggest she received one minor award, but that does not convince me either. She still seems utterly irrelevant to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: references. I think we need an expert who speaks Portuguese (but not the person who created the article or their friends! a neutral editor please), as most references are unintelligible to the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia users. I am also not convinced that references on websites such as Webpoa.com and freewebs.com are reliable--are they not essentially non-reliable blogs? Moreover, I am concerned that one reference with a potential POV issue ("vanguard of education in the region"), comes from a PhD thesis which was not published as a book apparently; the fact that this is such a gloating statement, from a graduate student, makes it hard to take it seriously.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As the article's creator, am I allowed to participate in this discussion? Nikilada (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I don't think it would be necessary. I think a neutral Portuguese speaker and a few other neutral reviewers would be good however. I regret that this has turned into a long discussion; I don't understand why more editors are not voting. It was nominated three weeks ago...I've never seen anything like it. It is usually a fairly quick process with lots of votes. Is there a long backlog of proposed deletions at the moment?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 1 December 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.