Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Stark
- 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. ✗plicit 00:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Emma Stark
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Emma Stark (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)
Biography of an educator not
primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as Find-a-Grave and the self-published websites of non-media organizations in her own local area -- and even the one source that looks acceptable on first glance, because it comes from a real newspaper, is still merely an excerpt of a book written by one of the subject's own relatives rather than genuinely independent third-party coverage. And while I was able to find one source about her that is reliable and independent enough to actually count for something toward GNG, one source isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing is primary.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on properly reliable sources, and we do not waive GNG just because the subject happens to be a member of an underrepresented minority group. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
]
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on properly reliable sources, and we do not waive GNG just because the subject happens to be a member of an underrepresented minority group. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
- Comment. Our notability criteria for educators are aimed at modern university professors; for historical schoolteachers such as the subject the correct criterion is WP:GNG. I do not see why the sources by the BC Black History Awareness society should be considered primary. To me they look secondary, reliable, and in-depth. Primary would be stuff like wedding announcements and obituaries in local newspapers, or the newspaper-published family history that these sources refer to as their source. But despite having two of these secondary sources, they are both from the same organization so they count as only one, and we need multiple sources. Are there other sources, independent of these, which we could use towards GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- What makes you think being "media" is some kind of imprimatur of quality? And where do you see any qualification about locality in WP:GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)]
- What makes you think being "media" is some kind of imprimatur of quality? And where do you see any qualification about locality in
- Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, she meets the general notability criteria on the basis of the following:
- Chapter 10 of the following book is exclusive about her: Healey, H. (2020). On Their Own Terms: True Stories of Trailblazing Women of Vancouver Island. Australia: Heritage House.
- Significant coverage here: https://bcblackhistory.ca/emma-stark/
- Significant coverage here: https://www.communitystories.ca/v2/bc-black-pioneers_les-pionniers-noirs-de-la-cb/story/first-black-teacher-on-vancouver-island-emma-stark/
- I wasn't able to see it all or see the page numbers, but it is clear from what I can see on Google books that the following has more than trivial mentions of her: Kilian, C. (2020). Go Do Some Great Thing: The Black Pioneers of British Columbia. Canada: Harbour Publishing Company Limited.
- I do not agree that 2 & 3 above are primary sources. CT55555 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have written the exact same reply to me and User:David Eppstein and I am not sure if that was intentional or not, because my argument also included a book chapter and that seemed like the most important part of what I was saying.
- Nonetheless, I am surprised that you are saying (if I understand correctly) that the BC Black History Awareness Society is not good for reliability or notability. Is that just your opinion, or is there a consensus that has been reached, or a guideline you can point to? It's an organization that has a ~40 year history with a specific focus on cataloguing the role of Black people in BC. Regarding it being "local" I know you know this, but for the benefit of all editors, BC = British Columbia a Canadian province with a population and area comparable to a medium sized country. CT55555 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I added sources and expanded the article, including with several books, and it appears WP:BASIC notability is supported. I have concerns about the Healey (2020) source due to a substantial error (reprinted in a newspaper excerpt), i.e. "In 1895, when Emma was 11 years old, tragedy struck the Stark family." (Stark was born in 1856/1857 and died in 1890). It also has other conflicts with the mostly-primary "History of the Stark Family" series in the Further reading section. However, there are other sources that provide sustained coverage and appear to be independent and reliable. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Keep per WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Keep. I don't know what the article was like when it was nominated but it seems an obvious keep now, with multiple reliable independent sources meeting GNG. I disagree that local historical society material should be disregarded. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY in accord with David Eppstein. (Hi, haven't seen you in years!) Bearian (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)]
- 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.