Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Benjamin

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Benjamin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notable only for inaccurate claims made about her in the past few years, e.g. the Thoughco article referenced. Qwirkle (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see any indication in the article that the information is incorrect and I couldn't see the thoughco article which you mentioned in your nomination. The sources in the article are reliable and she has sufficient secondary sources about her that pass
WP:BEFORE. Suonii180 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

If you didn’t see the thoughtco article, then you didn’t actually read the article. It is the first reference.

You should strike your vote until you have actually read it and the cites. Qwirkle (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference has about.com, not thoughco in the reference so no, I didn't automatically realise that was the reference you were talking about. It's also still unclear what you think is inaccurate about the article. The source that you're referring to doesn't refute the information in Benjamin's article. If you think some of the information is incorrect then it would be helpful to be specific about what that is. Suonii180 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

…Which is to say you didn’t actually read the first reference. “Thoughtco” appears in very, very big letters on it, right at the top.

Nearly every single fact in the article aside from biography is wrong, by the look of it, and most of the cites are the sort of dreck that makes this unsurprising. Qwirkle (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources which I recognised to be reputable sources such as the JSTOR article, the blackpast.org article and the Smithsonian article which all collaborate the information on Benjamin's article. You need to be specific on exactly which paragraph you think is incorrect. Also, the deletion process is not just based on the sources already in the article. As nominator, it's your responsibility to do a

WP:BEFORE check which I don't think you did as there are numerous results that provide secondary source about her such as [1] [2] [3] Suonii180 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You do realize that the first cite is already mentioned in the existing references…i.e, you are stacking cites[?]

You do realize that the references for your second cite explicitly refute the idea that this was adopted for the Capitol?

Do you really think that a cite which records the “McCoy” canard is that credible? Qwirkle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring the sources from a two minute search you should have done before nominating the article, she has enough notability to pass

WP:GNG. As you cannot specifically say which part of the article is incorrect ~~[other than the capitol information]~~ then I'm going to remain with my keep opinion and leave it at that. Suonii180 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC) - scored out the capitol part as it sounded like I thought the info was inaccurate which I don't. I merely meant that my opinion hasn't changed even if the source mentioned above is ignored. Suonii180 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No matter how many times you trot out the false assertion that a search was not done before nominating, it remains false. As I explicitly mention above, the first source was already visible just by fully reading the article, down to the roots…so why didn’t you see it?Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The “capitol part” is, in fact inaccurate, as anyone…anyone else, by the look of it… who actually reads the sources right effin’ here, and in the article will see. Miss Benjamin’s system, and others like it, no doubt, were proposed, but rejected against more modern technology, electricity. Qwirkle (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I updated the article with a source from the U.S. House of Representatives that appears to both address the 'accuracy' dispute and further support notability in addition to the other sources in the article per
WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC) updated !vote, per article Talk page discussion Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the references I checked are good ones. Notable person.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't found anything wrong here.--Rhpitts1055 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references for the subject are sound. That the nominator disagrees as to whether or not her acknowledgments or achievements are warranted is beside the point. If anyone feels that there are inaccuracies in the body of the article, they can be added to the article (referenced, of course). She is clearly notable, even if there are "inaccurate claims made about her in the past few years". Someone does not become less notable if facts about them are proven to be wrong when they have the sort of independent referencing this subject has. ExRat (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think given that it has now been documented in the article that MEB was notable as a composer, in a minor way, perhaps, but a real one, it’s safe to withdraw this AfD.

That said, the other references are not sound. They are listicle glurge. Real inventors will show up in actual technical documents, in advertising, in the patents, descriptions, and lawsuits surrounding other patents. Miss Benjamin -as an inventor of signaling systems- only shows in ethnocentric or gender-based glurge. Compare this with, say, Frederick McKinley Jones or Stephanie Kwolek. As an inventor, Miss Benjamin only appears notable for the mythology based on her. Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes general notability guidelines for inclusion. Missvain (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject clearly passes
WP:SIGCOV based on sources in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2021 (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.