Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma G. Cummings

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. Tone 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emma G. Cummings[edit]

[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)

I don't believe this lady meets WP:NBIO. The article does not provide any evidence of notability nor could I find anything on line. The blogger at The Backside of America could not find out much about her either, so the "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources" is missing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to contribute to the conversation regarding deleting this article. I know the page is currently short, but this is a hugely important woman who influenced horticulture and tree planting in the Boston area of the US, and even has a memorial plaque celebrating her. I want to continue adding to and building this page and I don't feel it should be deleted because it does meets with the notability criteria of Wikipedia. I know some of the information online is limited but I have friends in Boston are looking for more information on her. She was an author, she made great contributions to the Boston area and was well known and recognized in her time. The article is limited because I'm still fact checking lots of information before adding it to ensure I have good references. We should be actively increasing the number of notable women on Wikipedia to adjust the gender imbalance, and this woman was recommended by Wikipedia's Women In Red as being notable and missing an article, and so this is why i created it.

I hope that explains why this article should not be deleted. Please let me know if you want to discuss.

Geneticcuckoo (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a few references have been added to the article. But while seeing (and helping a bit with) the article's development has been interesting, I can't say that any of those references appear to be particularly in-depth. There are obituaries, mentions in conference minutes, and entries in genealogy texts and library author lists, but most of the mentions are only in passing. But I'm not convinced either that this amount of coverage available online isn't significant for a turn-of-the-century figure. Maybe there exists more offline sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia's definition of "hugely important" is that a subject can meet the GNG. Adequate, reliable sources demonstrating a subject's notability is a prerequisite for an article, not an afterthought, and those sources should have been provided prior to any such article leaving draft space. Indeed, we should be increasing the number of notable women on Wikipedia, but if the sourcing here wouldn't support an article for a male horticulturist, I don't see how it would for a a woman, a Xhosa or a Martian either. Ravenswing 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added information and references to 2 reviews of her book, as well as a reference verifying that she was an Associate (elected, not just dues-paying) of the American Ornithologists' Union, which later became the American Ornithological Society. Bakazaka (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work is reviewed in several RS and The Journal of Education 1904 called her a "well known ornithologist." A reprint of her speech given in Massachusetts appears in Nebraska! She was the first woman to hold city office in Brookline. This is plenty to establish notability. I hope that Ravenswing will take a look at sources I added and sources that Bakazaka found. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as that JSTOR link goes, a three-paragraph book review where the subject is, in fact, called a "well-known member of the Ornithologists' Union" would meet no standard for notability on Wikipedia; not WP:PROF, not the GNG, nor any other criterion. In like fashion, Massachusetts has over 360 municipalities, and no doubt there was someone who was the first woman to hold public office in each and every one of them (in Brookline's case, actually, that'd be "town" office); that meets no notability criteria either, especially since NPOL would accord no presumptive notability to any municipal official in a town Brookline's size. I would be happy to strike my Delete vote if you come up with grounds that actually meet the specific conditions of any notability criteria, but come on. Ravenswing 00:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Subjects meets WP:NACADEMIC#3 as an elected member of the American Ornithological Society. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3, as subject has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Bakazaka (talk) 04:23, 18 September 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.