Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Foster Welch

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. As pointed out below, significant coverage does not have to be primarily about her, but merely enough to write a full-fledged well-referenced article that isn't just a redundant fork of the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Foster Welch

Marion Foster Welch (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)

There is nothing of substance int his article. It starts by noting that the subject failed to gain any notability, and then largely discusses Stephen Collins Foster and other related people. I redirected this to the article on the father but it was reverted. Notability is not inherited, even by curating the exhibits on the notable person from whom such inheritance is claimed. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grudgingly, as we don't have enough articles on women leaders on the wiki, I'm inclined to agree with the AfD. As written, the article doesn't make any strong case for her notability. I've tried a few Google searches to see if there is a stronger case made elsewhere, but not coming back with much either. I'd recommend merging any relevant details into the Stephen Foster Memorial article or somewhere similar. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Stephen Foster Memorial appears to be a major facilty at the University of Pittsburgh; Welch its founder. Founding what evolves into a major facility seems to me to be grounds for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be inherited; that is invalid reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Foster Welch was the curator of the Stephen Foster Museum, probably an unusual occupation for a woman at that time. The article has been improved and her notability has been established by the preponderance of adequate sources. Her notability is not dependent upon who her parents were. The museum she curated and operated was the precursor to the Stephen Foster Memorial and is important related to the development of that structure, its contents and to Pittsburgh. So even if her parents were not mentioned in the article, her notability is established. Her activities related to the development of the museum are documented in many newspaper articles. Don't ignore the references.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara, I'm still struggling to see what is notable about Marion Welch in her own right - the references that I can access seem to mainly note her date of death and grave, or involve her talking about her father. The Memorial is certainly notable, but that wiki article actually makes no reference to her that I can see, tracing its foundation back to the Tuesday Musical Club in 1927 and the work of Josiah Kirby Lilly. I was wondering... have any historians written about her, in terms of what you describe, as her unusual occupation? Is there any way you could expand on the sentence that runs "at that time she was involved in the planning and financing of the Stephen Foster Memorial", which seems to be the main claim for notability in the article? That would certainly help convince me. Without any further information, it does feel very thin, and below what I'd be looking for in terms of the WP:GNG guidelines. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a new article, and it has been so quickly nominated for deletion by an editor who deleted its contents yesterday, I unfortunately have to question the good faith of this nomination. Time that could have been spent improving the article was taken up with responding to the complete deletion of the contents yesterday. That issue had to be addressed. The content about her involvement with the current Stephen Foster Memorial has not be added yet. I would ask for more time to insert such material into the Stephen Foster Memorial article. This article is only twelve days old! It took me three months to work on my first large article Monarch butterfly migration. There are about twelve more newspaper articles whose content has not been added yet. This is not an urgent situation since you can observe in the editing history that is still being improved.

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

if you actually take the time to read WP:NOTINHERITED you will see that the title is a metaphor. Nothing can derive notability from something else; not a parent from their child or a child from their parent... not an architect from a building nor a building from its architect, and not the curator of a museum from the museum, nor the museum from curator. Each thing stands on its own. You too make an invalid argument. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic overstatement of WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is indeed not inherited, but it is derived from a topic's relationship with the rest of the world. The rest of the world provides the context in which to assess the notability. Someone's notability may arise from something that appears to be an inherited notability, but in fact isn't. It is too easy to dismiss something because it looks like it is inherited, when it might not be. It is not a black-and-white case of holding a child of a famous person to a higher standard and dismissing anything that might have arisen because of that relationship. Those quoting WP:NOTINHERITED need to be sure they are not exhibiting conscious bias against someone because they are the child of a famous person. Having said that, Stephen Foster's sketchbook (mentioned below) is a classic example of over-reach - that is a much better case to use WP:NOTINHERITED for. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. I'm probably teaching you "to suck eggs", as we'd say over here (!), but you might find the sandbox function useful though - it would allow you to work up articles "in slow time" and ensure that notability is demonstrated/explained before they go up. There are a couple of other visiting scholar articles with similar issues; I'd suggest clarifying Henry Overholt (apparently "known for being the great grandfather of Henry Clay Frick", which isn't really a criteria) - and Stephen Foster's sketchbook (I can't work out why the notebook itself is notable) if you get a chance. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-we need to allow appropriate time for this article to develop; it's only been created 2 weeks ago. As a WVS at Pitt Barbara is working on creating new articles on women, and the sources are there for Marion if you give it time.Kirkcudbrightshire (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirkcudbrightshire, it might be worth highlighting that you are employed as the programme coordinator for the WVS at the University of Pittsburgh (I know it is on your user page under conflicts of interest, but worth reiterating if you're engaging in debate on articles created under the scheme). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kircudbrightshire is not the program coordinator. That would be the WikiEd Foundation. Kirkenbrightshire has clearly identified his relationship to articles that utilize the contents of the University of Pittsburgh archives. He is an archivist. And along with WikiEd, wants to see library content in the encyclopedia. He is a librarian/archivist and 'steers' me to the historical resources related to people, places and things related to Western Pennsylvania. Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Probably one for you to take up with Kirkcudbrightshire; his Wikipedia user page currently says: "I'm currently the program coordinator for the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program at the University of Pittsburgh." He goes on to note, under the subtitle "Conflict of Interest", "my intention is to improve encyclopedic content about the collections held within the University of Pittsburgh Library System, specifically the Archives Service Center" - which is fair enough but is, as he observes, a conflict of interest when editing this sort of page. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-this article is a great start and will allow others who are interested in this topic to contribute to it. There is a wealth of information about this remarkable woman out there, and this page will be a good one to watch as it matures and grows as more folks involved with the materials have a chance to work on it. However, you have to give it a chance to do so. --TheLeaper (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or draftify the latter seems more appropriate like since it ~appears~ there are people who want to develop this. As of now however no notability is demonstrated and hand-wavy claims that refs with substantial discussion of the subject exist, are not sufficient in a deletion discussion. This article should not be in main space now. We can close this AfD if the creator will move the article to draft space themselves, or just express consent to that if they don't know how to move it. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move the article. If you would like to propose a move, I suggest that you nominate it for such a move. I oppose such a move to draft space at this time. There are at least ten more references to add to the article. Consider it a stub, at least. In this AfD discussion allow extra time for those (like me) who set aside family time during the holidays and give me and other editors make future responses to the AfD and article improvement.Barbara (WVS) (talk)

• Weak keep or draftify I did some digging and found some sources which I added to the article. She was clearly well known during the time as the keeper of Foster's legacy and turned up at events honoring him. She was known as a composer during her lifetime, though her work seems to have gone missing even though she was reported to work on it up until her death. I say weak keep though because most news articles I can see don't focus on her (though I did find a few that made her the main focus). Looking at sources I do not have access to, she seems well covered often in Pittsburgh news and in some monographs. I think a full article can be made out of what exists "out there." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is the problem here one of relying too much on as-yet-unpublished archival materials? The better way to write about someone like this is for someone (whether they be a professional writer or historian or an amateur researching the topic) to write articles and books about this person, based on archival materials and other historical sources, and for that someone to get those articles and books published, and then for those books and articles (if they are assessed to be reliable and authoritative on the subject) to be used as sources for a Wikipedia article. If not many publishers will publish on this topic, that may tell you something. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The archival materials are published and will soon be inserted. Referencing the archival materials is a referencing challenge and will take some time.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. It seems that the article is growing in the right direction and should be given an opportunity to do so. This should have been started as a draft (for future reference for the article creator) but I think we're a bit past that now. An AfD can always be retried if the article ultimately fails to carefully establish notability. Right now, it's admittedly at the level of just hinting notability. I'm sanguine with giving this some time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject is notable in her own right as the curator of a museum and archive in a major American city, and renders the argument regarding inheritance irrelevant. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article needed work, I have cleaned it up somewhat, added a section on cultural contributions, did a bit of restructuring and added a citation re: the legacy of the memorial. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as hard over as some above, but I do still have concerns. There is a range of material on her going to events honouring her father, which does feel like WP:NOTINHERITED to me; it could easily go into her father's article. Beyond that, the only cited statements relevant to notability we seem to have at the moment are that a) in 1914 James Park asked her and Jessie Rose to become the live-in caretakers of her father's old house, where she lived until 1935; and that b) one of her compositions, "Beautiful Dreamer", was published. Personally, it still seems a bit thin to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. so many of the "keep" !votes made above have nothing at all to do with Notability/deletion criteria in WP. Unclear why so many strangely invalid !votes are being made here. Jytdog (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Blanket invalidating of others' !votes doesn't build up your own, and doesn't assume good faith. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we continue to neglect to admit that it really doesn't matter if an editor believes that the topic to be un-notable. It is the references that determine notability, not what we think about the person described in the biography. She appeared on the front page of the Pittsburgh Press when she died! Why wouldn't this one reference be enough? Why would an editor here believe that their opinion expressing the doubtfulness of her notability trump a major publication of the time that was subject to editorial oversight that placed her on the front page? If there is such a thing, she was certainly notable in 1935 when she died and was active in civic events and as a composer. I would dearly love to see if those who oppose the creation of a biography of a notable historic woman happen to be of the male persuation, but then it would be me that wouldn't be assuming good faith.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment - On 12/22 the article contained 4 references, some of them better than others. Now six days later, there are 14 references. I would say the article is improving. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/Comment - May I ask why the section was removed regarding the subject's role as caretaker (a.k.a. curator) of the historical home and it's contents? Also a reference that was removed in that section that was briefly tagged with "citation needed" but then the section disappeared. Trigger-happy deletions are counterproductive if there are editors working on improving an article (such as Barbara (WVS)). Give this article more time - women were not well represented in Foster-Welsh/Welch's day, and it takes time to find references. To complicate matters, there are two spellings of her last name on record, another reason to exercise patience, in my opinion. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged twice now. I checked through the University of Pittsburgh Press published history of the Foster family and the official history of the 1937 memorial before doing so, but couldn't find any material backing up those claims in those sources. I also left a message on the talk page of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, so far I haven't found any strong reliable sources for Welch that focus on the subject herself. The most focused seem to be her obituaries, e.g. Stephen Foster's Daughter Dead, but they do tend to position her in terms of her father's fame. I asked the same question earlier in this debate, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are more references and content to add regarding Welch and her position of museum curator from 1914-1935:

• Emerson, Ken. Doo-dah! : Stephen Foster and the rise of American popular culture. New York: Da Capo Press, 1998. pp. 310-12
• Foster Hall Bulletin, Number 10. May 1934, Josiah Lilly, pages 12-15
• Mornweck, Evelyn. Chronicles of Stephen Foster's family. Published 1944 various pages on Welch
• archival images of the museum curated by Welch.
• news stories about the controversy between Henry Ford and Welch regarding Ford's claim of 'possessing' and then moving the museum to Dearborn, MI
• Court cases initiated by Welch regarding properties and copyright infringements.

The article is filling out nicely and continued improvement is anticipated. My editing history is an indicator of my work in the improvement of topics - especially those related to the history of Pittsburgh and the archival holdings of the Pitt Library.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  All significant coverage contributes to WP:GNG, even if it is one sentence or part of a sentence.  Nor is WP:GNG the primary notability guideline, which is WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question asked in good faith could someone please explain what this phrase used by editor Hchc2009 means? "I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs?"
  When I looked on Urban Dictionary, the definition is "a command to "get lost" or "buzz off". The English Language dictionary and slang usage defines the term to mean "take a hike" "fuck off", "piss off" or "go away". Other definitions are obscene, and I won't go into those here. The intention of my question is not to escalate this discussion into a dispute, however I find this conversational tone to be disrespectful, irrelevant and unproductive. To my way of thinking, we are working towards a positive common outcome: improve the encyclopedia in an inclusive manner. To speak in dismissive and disrespectful ways does not further this common positive outcome. There are editors who are diligently trying to save this article on an early 20th C woman composer, curator and teacher (myself included.) The article now has 30 references - why is the notability of the subject and credibility of sources such as the New York Times being argued ad infinitum, and editors being told that they are learning to "suck eggs"? Civility is constructive. Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "To teach someone to suck eggs" - Netherzone, there's actually a Wikipedia article on this, Teaching grandmother to suck eggs, which defines it as "an English language saying meaning that a person is giving advice to someone else about a subject of which they are already familiar (and probably more so than the first person)". The same definition is given on the Free Dictionary, "to try to tell or show someone more knowledgeable or experienced than oneself how to do something". The Cambridge Dictionary similarly defines it as "to give advice to someone about a subject that they already know more about than you". ABC News did an item on it here. It is a reasonably widely used term, if a little archaic, and certainly isn't offensive. I fear the user-generated Urban Dictionary is slightly off on this one. As per the Wikipedia article suggests, it is certainly usually used as a phrase to mollify the impact of advice that might seem obvious when given to an experienced person.
• e.g. in the discussion above, another editor was saying "I would ask for more time to insert such material into the Stephen Foster Memorial article." Personally, I tend to work up new article material in the sandbox, so that when I put up an article, minimal notability is demonstrated. It saves a lot of problems. Since the person I'm talking to is a visiting scholar, and probably more experienced than I am, though, I prefaced the advice with the phrase to show that I'm consciously aware of that and trying not to cause offence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Wikipedia's notability is defined as being that the topic is "worthy of notice".  That's it.  The WP:N nutshell explains that notability is understood as that the topic attracts attention from the world at large over a period of time.  This source shows the topic receiving attention in an event with 50,000 people.

  I had the occasion to read a 2007 version of WP:Deletion policy, and it says, "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship." 

  It should be quickly apparent from this 2007 concept as applied to the discussion here to focus on the idea of original research.  Is "Marion Foster Welch" the construction of multiple small pieces of evidence that don't quite fit together?  I'm not buying it.

  As for verifiability, does anyone doubt that the scholarship here is sound?  I think we are comfortable that this is not a controversial topic that will require attention to keeping a neutral view.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating, for me the link to her unveiling her father's statue is actually an example why I'd still recommend a "merge" into the Stephen Foster article. Marion Welch is mentioned in news articles of the period, but almost always in the context of Stephen Foster, her father. She unveils a statue to her famous father; she's appointed as the caretaker of her father's old house; researchers come to ask her about her father; her obituary even headlines with her being her father's daughter, etc. I'm not seeing significant coverage addressing Welch directly and in detail, which is part of the current criteria. I'd agree with you, through, that Original Research isn't required, although the fragmentary nature of the secondary sources has made editing quite difficult. I also definitely think Welch's role in Stephen Foster's legacy should be reflected somewhere on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close this Afd now. With due respect to the delete comments, I've reviewed many of the sources above. In my opinion, not only does the subject meet our notability guidelines, the article can be upgraded to Good Article status quite easily now. Continuing this Afd, especially after consensus has been reiterated, is an investment of time of volunteers that can be better utilized otherwise. Thanks. Lourdes 04:02, 10 January 2017 (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.