Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Washington Lewis
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 passing
]Betty Washington Lewis
- Betty Washington Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete not independently notable per
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There used to be profiles of her in old books like this but she was just a wife and mother. She's known to historians through her correspondence with her brother and Kenmore House, but not for herself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung's ref & similar. If she was discussed in any detail in history books she's notable. The immediate family of presidents usually is considered so, for the good reason that people typically want to know something about them--which is why they are in fact covered in history books, and that coverage is our definition of notability. DGG (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is not substantial and is not independent of her relationship to her family. She accomplished nothing of any note in her life. Although I do find the logic of arguing inherited notability for its own sake to be interesting. People in a country who fought a revolution to throw off the titles of aristocracy seem to be quite quick to embrace the institution. --Veritas (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I tried to be generous; I read the whole thing, and it is substantial -- there's just no there there. "She kept the home fires burning" seems to be the theme, perhaps as an inspiration to patriotic wives in the next war. Possibly it's some sort of reactionary thing at the height of the suffrage movement. I'm just guessing. But the only thing she really did of any significance was sewing socks for the troops. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I note that per the WP:NOT#CENSORED, we don't delete articles because we disagree with the manner in which their subjects' notability has been achieved. John254 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point - there is no significant coverage, only brief mentioning. --Veritas (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the coverage is significant, as even supporters of deletion acknowledge. "The Pioneer Mothers of America", for example, devotes 6 and 1/2 pages to Betty Washington Lewis -- see pages 72 through 78. John254 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, significance in quality not quantity lest we set our standards so low. Hell, it's barely significant in quantity (6 or 7 pages might be a lot for a middle school paper, but not a manuscript). Mind you, it's a subsection of a chapter in a book that doesn't even cite its sources! WP:CENSOR has absolutely nothing do with this. The reality is that, in this situation, notability comes through the individual's relations with a notable individual. Notability, however, is not inherited. While she might be of minor importance in a notable person's life clearly does not qualify her for notability herself. She is merely an unimportant sidenote. Moreover, there is no way to expand this article outside of stub status due to the availability of so few sources. And, why are there so few sources? Oh, right, because she's not notable... --Veritas (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the book doesn't cite its sources -- it is a source. If we required that every source itself cite sources, then required that each source cited in the source cited in the article cite additional sources, etc, then we obviously would never be able to find any acceptable sources. Furthermore, I contend that articles should not be deleted on the basis of purely subjective assertions of non-notability, such as the claim that an individual is notable only in the context of another notable person. John254 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is a work of history, a secondary source, which - in the historical field - must cite its sources (primary) in order to considered reliable thus establishing provenance. This source itself could never be included in the article because it is not reliable. I never said that an individual is notable in the context of another individual. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The only way this supposed "source" even mentions her is because she is related to a notable person. This is why I am saying she is not notable herself. Hence why my nomination stated, "not independently notable." --Veritas (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it would be nice if every secondary source we employed cited relevant primary sources, this is required neither by Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor by actual practice. For instance, we generally accept articles in respectable newspapers as reliable sources, notwithstanding the fact that the original notes and tape-recordings of interviews employed to assemble those articles may never be published. We're not going to hold this article to a higher standard of sourcing than would be employed anywhere else on Wikipedia, merely because some users would like to have the article deleted. John254 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is a work of history, a secondary source, which - in the historical field - must cite its sources (primary) in order to considered reliable thus establishing provenance. This source itself could never be included in the article because it is not reliable. I never said that an individual is notable in the context of another individual. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The only way this supposed "source" even mentions her is because she is related to a notable person. This is why I am saying she is not notable herself. Hence why my nomination stated, "not independently notable." --Veritas (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the book doesn't cite its sources -- it is a source. If we required that every source itself cite sources, then required that each source cited in the source cited in the article cite additional sources, etc, then we obviously would never be able to find any acceptable sources. Furthermore, I contend that articles should not be deleted on the basis of purely subjective assertions of non-notability, such as the claim that an individual is notable only in the context of another notable person. John254 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, significance in quality not quantity lest we set our standards so low. Hell, it's barely significant in quantity (6 or 7 pages might be a lot for a middle school paper, but not a manuscript). Mind you, it's a subsection of a chapter in a book that doesn't even cite its sources!
- Actually, the coverage is significant, as even supporters of deletion acknowledge. "The Pioneer Mothers of America", for example, devotes 6 and 1/2 pages to Betty Washington Lewis -- see pages 72 through 78. John254 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point - there is no significant coverage, only brief mentioning. --Veritas (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Still a relevant figure in Americana, apparently. And I'm sure that enough information can be culled from various reliable sources to make a decent article out of this. For example, Kenmore and the Lewises probably provides some good biographical information. Zagalejo^^^ 06:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't regard misrepresenting both the availability of source material and the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources to be a "cogent argument". Opinions appear to differ with respect to that question, however. As described above, Betty Washington Lewis is the subject of extensive coverage in "The Pioneer Mothers of America" -- see pages 72 through 78, in Kenmore and the Lewises, and is even mentioned in contemporary news coverage. Veritas appears to be arguing that
- (1) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that secondary sources cite primary sources to establish reliability, a requirement that exists nowhere either in the policy itself or in actual practice -- indeed, as described above, we consider sources such as newspapers, which rarely cite primary sources, to constitute reliable secondary sources.
- (2) There isn't substantial coverage of Betty Washington Lewis in reliable sources, which has been shown to be blatantly false, hence number 3:
- (3) He doesn't personally believe that the coverage of WP:IDONTLIKEITargument.
- (4) He doesn't think that personally believe that WP:IDONTLIKEITargument.
- Note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability,
If third-party reliable sources endorse the importance of the subject of an article by providing substantial coverage of it, we should not determine the subject to be non-notable anyway on the basis of an original research reassessment. John254 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
- 'comment why historians think a subject worth discussing is not our concern--it is enough that they do. To the extent that precedent matters, we have always considered the immediate family of heads of state notable--in our time, there is always sufficient coverage, and this goes for the earlier centuries also to the extent there is material. The assumption is that knowing about someone's parents, spouse and children gives some information about one's life and character---and that for sufficiently important people, this is worth the knowing. DGG (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The present article is a stub, and needs expanding. From what is said above about her correspondence, I assume that this is a significant historical source (though possibly a minor one). That would certainly be enough to make her notable. I agree with the principle that relatives of notable people are not necessarily notable, but from what is set out above, it seems to me that her notability is widely accepted. Mind you, I know little directly of the subject, but hope that enables me to offer a more objective opinion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The only question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is. Whether she did anything notable is irrelevant. Whether the sources should have covered her is irrelevant. The coverage does not have to be "independent of her relationship to her family", merely independent of the subject. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there isn't "significant" coverage in sources. --Veritas (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, objectively passes the PNC, but this is pretty weak tea. Every reference I find to her is just as "Betty Washington, sister of George" or "mistress of Kenmore" or "wife of Fielding Lewis". Some epistolary companions become notable, sure, but her correspondence is only studied for hints about George. The only thing saving her, I guess, is a tradition well into the 19th century of honoring her as a distaff Founding Father. For what, exactly, I still can't figure out. Biology is destiny and, well, we do have Line of succession to the British throne, and we may elect the wife of a president to follow the son of a president, but now I'm treading on the grounds of personal prejudice or ideology. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 19 February 2008 (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.