Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Hilda Clark

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hilda Clark[edit]

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

Not seeing anything really establishing notably. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Google books search of "Dr Hilda Clark" or "Hilda Clark" gives a lot of results. Entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography satisfies WP:ANYBIO #3. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable even in a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Her Great War work, among other things, is notable and internet searches turn up quite a lot. The article is not perfect, but expansion, not deletion is the way to go. Dunarc (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Enough there for notability, but not strong. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Needs a rename to something like Hilda Clark (physician). XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable in comparison with the subjects of so many new articles. Women like her who did so much for so many deserve all the recognition they can get, least of all a Wikipedia article.Plucas58 (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources content have been expanded, now is criterion for WP:GNG. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked for sources I could find about half a dozen Dr Hilda Clark's.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also have people actually checked some of the sources we are using?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some internet searches do seem to conflate the two unfortunately, but the subject of the article is the one in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which would suggest notability. Also, if you search Hilda Clark Quaker, quite a lot comes up. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled in 2 bare references, could somebody else have a look? SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is leniency for notability on articles of people who are no longer living, unlike articles for BLP, right? It seems like she was pretty recognized as both a medical professional/scientist and also a women's rights activist. CanoeUnlined (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important figure in history of Quaker relief work in First World War Frankem51 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of other WP articles point to Hilda Clark (the Quaker subject of this article). As there is another (unconnected) Hilda Clark (Actress) in WP, if this article is not kept, it is bound to be recreated to solve those broken connections. Note also that there is another Hilda Clark MBE (1905-1996) from whom Dr Hilda Clark needs to be distinguished. Citations I have added to the article are digitally discoverable from resources often made available via public libraries and or JISC open access digital collections. If I have listed them, I have read them and confirmed the content. 8LR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Covered in other books, such as this one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anybody with an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is presumed notable per WP:ANYBIO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB entry = Notability. The DNB ref seems to have been there before nomination, so clearly a fail of WP:BEFORE here. Rename to Hilda Clark (doctor) though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest rename Hilda Clark (doctor) or Hilda Clark (physician), whichever is preferred and someone create a disambig page.--Oronsay (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO instead of Hilda Clark (doctor), it is better to rename as Hilda Clark (physician), which based on the source information. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most common disambiguation for British medical doctors is "(doctor)". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no such different between "doctor" and "physician" on the meaning, Hilda Clark (physician) can be create a redirection to Hilda Clark (doctor). SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, yes there is. This has been endlessly discussed. In Britain, a physician is a specialist in internal medicine. The term is not used as generically as it often is elsewhere. It is true that Clark is sometimes referred to as a physician, but in fact she was a phthisiatrist (tuberculosis specialist) and general practitioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (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.