Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice H. Parker

Add links
From 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice H. Parker[edit]

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

Alice H. Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Are there any good cites for this being a notable invention, or just something that got patented? Qwirkle (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4]. She is frequently cited as a Black woman inventor, often in books for children—evidently she is viewed as a role model for many. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad when pople think that the only way to create role models is to lie.[citation needed] Why do you think Wikipedia should be part of such a despicable process? Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you accusing me of lying when I have provided four sources to indicate the notability of the subject? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the lie here? I'm not seeing anything that appears to be a lie anywhere. The lady got a patent, and has received decent coverage for it, so she's notable. Not clear what the issue is here. Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the sources describe an entirely imaginary impact of the design,[citation needed] when it is patently obvious, so to speak, that those claims are false.[citation needed] Qwirkle (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making vague accusations about the veracity of sources is not an especially constructive way of approaching AfD. What, specifically, do you think is false? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the least bit vague about it. Nearly every claim made outside of the mere existence of the subject and the patent is complete crap.[citation needed] What specific examples would you like? This was not the first example of a natural gas air heater,[citation needed] or of zone heating.[citation needed] It did not relieve the good suburbanites of Princeton of the onerous burden of chopping firewood. Every single claim found in the many crap cites offered up to the hapless reader are false except the very basic fact of the patent.[citation needed] Qwirkle (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that something is problematic within the article, AFD is not cleanup. The subject is clearly notable, even if the sources indicate that the patent didn't see particularly widespread use. The sources do demonstrate notability, though. Hog Farm Bacon 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a highly influential African-American woman as shown by sources above and ones cited in the article Spiderone 10:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is about a person, and the sources provided in the article (along with those identified above) demonstrate that the person meets the notability standard. The argument for deletion questions the notability of her invention, which is not relevant. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once you remove the “facts” which are questionable, and the sources which are bad, this is article would be reduced to a single sentence, which hardly suggests notability, except, perhaps in New Jersey. Qwirkle (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure entirely what the nominator's concern is here. True, some of the sources in the article are junk, but in my opinion, between the Siouxland News video (from South Dakota, so she's not just a NJ phenomenon), the elementary school library book linked by AleatoryPonderings, and then the Star-Ledger piece, Greenwood Publishing Group book, and EGIA group piece cited in the article, I'm seeing notability here. Hog Farm Bacon 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this looks okay. I'm definitely not seeing any notability issues here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Hog Farm pretty much said what I was going to. The sourcing to begin with wasn't great, but between here and there, we've enough to get over the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AleatoryPonderings. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above keepers. While I had seen some of Qwirkle's points before and was going to refrain from voting, they throw this baby out with the perceived bathwater by edit warring over the innocuous Further reading section and by referring to those who ask for better behavior in this and another woman inventor AfD as trolls. I question their judgment to the point that it has brought about a chill. Enjoy the snowy weekend, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep GNG requires a specific amount RS coverage, which she has. It is a service to our readers to have articles about people they are likely to read about elsewhere. GNG does not require that every editor is impressed by the reason for coverage. To me, Alice H. Parker's achievement is impressive and so is she, much more than many people with lengthy bios. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of this article, a woman inventor, clearly meets GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as the nominator is asking for sources to back up the claims of this article, it would be nice if they did the same with their claims in this afd (citation needed tags have been added in appropriate places). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reader will note that User:Coolabahapple requires a citation for the idea that it is sad to create role models by lying. Nothing more to be said, is there? Qwirkle (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_H._Parker&oldid=989646048"