Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hannah 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 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hannah Adamson

Amy Hannah Adamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Schools, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• JMWt, Necrothesp is correct. The fastest way to handle this is to withdraw the nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 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.
    As it says, meeting one or more doesn't guarantee inclusion.
    If you think this person should be included then stop inferring WP:ANYBIO is a slamdunk when the text clearly says it isn't.
    I am not withdrawing anything. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • JMWt, no one is kicking your dog. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’ve no idea what that means. Discuss this topic or don't. JMWt (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll repeat what I've already said elsewhere: 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) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          This is not how we do discussions. I can understand your frustration but I'm not entertaining engagement with you where you try to imply guidelines say things they don't and where you imply somehow I'm not acting in good faith.

          I don't believe someone who has been a teacher and headteacher is notable. I don't believe that simple statements in newspapers would 'normally' count towards notability and I don't believe that we should consider presence in a dictionary of biography as a slamdunk. You don't like it, that's fine. We have a difference of opinion.

          Either discuss the notability with regard to guidelines and policies of en.wiki. Or don't. That's it. JMWt (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          I am in no way implying that you are not acting in good faith. I am saying that you are arguing against longstanding consensus (which is a policy, by the way). You may not realise that you are, but when several other experienced editors tell you that you are then it's time to concede that you may be wrong instead of trying to tell them that they're wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 16 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]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointmentsin 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. I should also point out that the articles in Trove are actually biographies, and are not merely simple statements about an appointment. James500 (talk) 13:18, 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. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The depth of coverage in the newspaper biographies is also substantial. The newspapers may be using a recent appointment as an excuse to write a biography, but each biography is not actually about that appointment. They are about the whole of Adamson's life over a period from at least 1926 to 1949. The sources are not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:09, 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 as with my keep opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP: ANYBIO. Basically appeared in a National Dictionary proves notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 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.