Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Bake

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. There was indeed extensive literature about her. (non-admin closure) Double Plus Ungood (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Bake

Adriana Bake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The one source (and yes, there is only one here) is not the main issue here. There has been very little editing here in the past 4 years, which is plenty of time for users to find relevant and sourced information about her. In addition, every information about her could be placed in her husband's article (the first sentence in the lead references her as a governor's wife), as at the moment it is barely enough to fill a stub. Additionally, the page has seen very little traffic in the past years, and the only pages linking to it are overwhelmingly userpages, as opposed to content articles, all of which doesn't help its notability. Overall my opinion here is based on 3 criteria from WP:Notable - 1.Significant coverage, 2.Sources and 3. Presumed. Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. There's clearly been no effort at
  WP:ANYBIO. She's discussed in The Social World of Batavia (2004), and Google Books shows many other sources in Dutch. I oppose the nominator's proposal to treat this woman simply as a footnote in her husband's page. pburka (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  SPEAK 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is some truth in your arguments. The position is not inherently notable. On the other hand, it surely does NOT preclude notability either. In fact, when daring to take some spotlights, the position provided potential for attention and coverage. As Jean Gelman Taylor points out, 18th century first lady Adriana Bake seized that potential. It made her into an 18th century historical figure who was covered then, and continues to be discussed to date. In other words, Adriane Bake meets the

  WP:ANYBIO. gidonb (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, she's only a woman, so let's just ignore the sources about her that show that she easily passes the

  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. This is a historic figure, there is no concern of
  WP:GNG
  per:
  • Taylor, Jean Gelman (2004). The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-299-09474-4.
  • Zuiderweg, Adrienne (2014). "Bake, Adriana Johanna (1724–1787)". Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland [Digital Women Lexicon of the Netherlands].
  • Bosma, Ulbe; Raben, Remco (2008). Being "Dutch" in the Indies: A History of Creolisation and Empire, 1500–1920. NUS Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-9971-69-373-2.

There is more but this is sufficient. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the principal source is
  Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland leads to a subproject and isn't particularly informative). PamD 10:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the sources and the subject is clearly of historical interest.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ungood, PamD, and Ipigott. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we still living in times where any woman is considered to be the property of her father or her husband? This nomination, and the support that it has received, is simply incredible.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]