Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Ann Drazba

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. Yunshui 雲水 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ann Drazba

[edit]

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

Carol Ann Drazba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no more than WP:LOCALFAME, if even that. Dying does not confer inherent notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This seems to me like a fairly open and shut case where we should have an article and where the argument for deletion is, respectfully, extremely threadbare. WP:LOCALFAME addresses situations where someone is famous locally for something they did locally. This person is notable--and not just in her hometown--for being one of the first two American nurses to die in the Vietnam War. Nor is she notable just because she died, as the nominator suggested; she's notable because of when she died, where she died, what she was doing when she died, and why she died. As a result, numerous reliable sources discuss her life and her death, only a few of which were added as a starting point when creating this article earlier this evening. (To my admitted irritation, this was nominated for deletion the very evening it was re-created.) The argument the nominator made on the talk page is likewise insufficient as a basis for deletion: That not everything needs its own article. Sure, but notable subjects covered in reliable sources should. That's... basically what we do here. Moreover, consider the following:
  1. There was a prior version of this page that existed until February 4, 2020, when it was deleted due to a copyright violation -- a user had engaged in wholesale copyright violations, and this was a page that he or she had worked on or created so it was assumed to be a violation. The reasons given by the admin at the time did not suggest any problem with notability, and the page had existed for many years prior to deletion. Indeed, as is standard, the admin invited anyone who wanted to recreate the banned user's pages without copyright violations to do so. The re-creation of this article this evening followed that invitation.
  2. I came across the article (or lack thereof) this evening when conducting research into women in the Vietnam War; I was specifically searching for this person, found that we used to have an article but no longer did, and so jumped in to re-add it. I've never been to Dunmore or Scranton, the supposedly "local fame" area. If people from areas nowhere near the "local fame" area are searching for someone, they're probably not only famous locally. Moreover, this article was re-created just over two weeks after its deletion for a CopyVio; people therefore seem to be searching for this topic sufficiently often that it doesn't take long not only for someone to land on it, but for someone willing to make an article to do so.
  3. There were multiple links to the prior article, which were rendered dead by its temporary deletion. On the talk page, the nominator says that's ok, because we can just delete those dead links -- but that badly misses the point. The point is that this person was notable enough that other Wikipedia articles link to an article about her.

In short, this seems to me like an article that we have had for a long time, on a subject that is clearly notable in light of the coverage in reliable sources, and thus not an appropriate subject for deletion.TheOtherBob 02:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOtherBob: I've addressed this on the talkpage already. The links you are concerned about making red are links that should only exist if the person is notable to begin with - if a vandal were to create an article on his neighbor Jim and link it from his school or hometown article, we wouldn't cry "oh no, if we delete the article then the link will go dead," we'd simply remove the non-notable entry, as we should here. If this is a notable person covered in significant detail in reliable sources that go beyond local interest, please produce some of the sources. They are not currently present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only were there sufficient reliable sources cited in the initial stub of the article when I created it earlier this evening, they have grown substantially in the few hours since as other users have added more sources. And, yes, you did try to address the problem of dead links on the talk page, but as I already explained above your answer misses the point. You're trying to solve the problem of all the dead links that deletion would create; I'm explaining that the very fact that there is a problem at all suggests that we shouldn't be deleting this, as other articles clearly viewed this subject as notable enough to link.TheOtherBob 03:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOtherBob: At the time I'm leaving this comment, RS have not been added to substantiate notability. There's a maximum of two brief pieces on the crash (the UPI newswire source is duplicated; I can't view the Times source to check that it isn't another duplication), and everything else is extreme local news. We have specific guidelines about this sort of thing! With regard to the dead links, I don't know how to make you understand that other people creating links does not bind us, boulder-like, to their poor understanding of notability guidelines in perpetuity. We really can just remove the links to articles that are deleted for not meeting our standards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your position that all the other people who created links to this article must have had a "poor understanding of notability guidelines" is... interesting. But in any event the mere fact that all those purportedly-wrongheaded people expected an article on this topic suggests that there should be an article on this topic. Nor is your belated attempt to shoehorn this into "One Event" particularly helpful. In a wildly abstract way we could suggest that the event for which this person is known is the Vietnam War, but unless you think the Vietnam War article should be millions of words long -- and every other article on a war likewise all-inclusive -- articles on notable people who played a role in the war will remain entirely normal and appropriate. Finally, as shown in the article, this person's death was covered on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner, and in newspapers in places such as Tampa Bay and Dayton, Ohio (just based on the sources identified in the few hours this article has existed -- more seem to be added every time I look). While you suggest that these articles are somehow duplicative, we don't need to debate that because the very fact that newspapers in San Francisco, Tampa Bay, and Dayton -- and likely many other places -- thought this person's death to be worth prominently reporting is fatal to your attempt to describe it as "extreme local news." (And, for that matter, when we talk about extremely local sources, we're not usually talking about newspapers serving 500,000 person metropolitan areas, as even the "local" papers do in this case.) Likewise, your claim that the articles focus solely on the crash rather than the nurses is just incorrect; the articles focus on both the crash and the nurses' biographies. In short, there just is not a credible argument for deletion.TheOtherBob 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"belated"...I've stated repeatedly from the beginning that Drazba is not notable and that dying does not make someone inherently notable. You also don't appear to understand how newswires such as UPI work (the same wire article reprinted in three cities is not widespread coverage). I doubt I'm going to be able to persuade you, so I'm going to stop here, but I would appreciate it if moving forward, you would not make false claims about the sources in your attempt to claim notability for this individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, belated -- your original argument under WP:LOCALFAME didn't work, so you belatedly tried to pivot to WP:ONEEVENT... which also didn't work. Your definition of "widespread coverage" also misses the mark; the fact that editors in San Francisco and Tampa Bay think someone is notable fatally undermines your attempt to claim that only people in Pennsylvania would think so. Finally, I note your accusation that I've somehow made "false claims" about the sources; all I can say is that your reliance on insults and false accusations says far more about you than it does about me, and that even a casual reviewer of the sources will see that your accusation is just lashing-out with no truth behind it. Creating an article on a historical figure for the good of the encyclopedia shouldn't mean facing this sort of accusation, and it saddens me that you'd stoop to it. I don't know if you're just having a bad day or if you truly think this is an acceptable way to behave, but I do hope you'll do better in the future -- and if you are just having a crappy day, then... I mean, hell, we all have them, so I sincerely hope you'll have a better one tomorrow. TheOtherBob 05:44, 21 February 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/Carol_Ann_Drazba&oldid=943025221"