Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Helen Clark (2nd nomination)

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 DELETE --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Helen Clark

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

She does not seem notable at all; merely the headmistress of a small religious secondary school in provincial Brazil who has achieved nothing significant. I don't think having her papers in a library makes her notable, unless there is clear Wikipedia policy about this. It seems to me that there are millions of headmasters/headmistresses of small, non-notable secondary schools globally--are we really going to create a page about each of them?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Helen Clark (permanent link).
Pinging the previous AfD's participants: User:Magnolia677, User:David Eppstein, User:Hegvald, User:LaMona, User:Bearian, and User:Nikilada. Cunard (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No doubt she was a worthy person, but notability has not been shown. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for further information to support her notability turned up only a few brief references, the text of which are wholly or partially incorporated into the article already. There's not enough evidence to support notability. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While she appears to have been someone who kept records while helping others, I can't see anything to show that she meets WP:GNG. There are some secondary sources used in the article: reference 1 simply confirms personal details, ref 12 confirms she spoke about her missionary work, ref 9 acknowledges her family's donation of her letters to their collection. The annual reports 2 and 5 confirm where she worked but no other details. Reference 13 shows her correspondence is kept as a collection, although it is all described as being to her family. None of these appears to establish any notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To my mind, the "headmistress" aspect of this is irrelevant (and in fact her title seems to have been "principal"), and even if it were it would not establish a precedent requiring us to include headmistresses by default. The potential notability is in the development of an education program that was considered by some to be of note, and actions during a disaster, which led to an award. This is a difficult case because 1) it takes place in a distant place, therefore finding a recording of events in North American or European publications is unlikely 2) we really have very little information to go on. This may have been simply a normal religious mission - unfortunately, we do not know, and if there is an answer it is in her papers, which would constitute original research. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your comment. May I just add: If the article was created because of novel pedagogy (doubtful), an academic article in a journal of pedagogical studies would be the appropriate venue. If it was created because she was a headmistress or missionary like millions of people globally, this AFD seems appropriate. As for the "disaster" event, is it considered by the Methodist church to be one of three "miracles" making her what Catholics would call a "saint"? If that's not the case, I am not convinced that it is relevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: User:LaMona: Are you for deletion as the article stands today? This is the second attempt and we shouldn't have long discussions; just let people vote.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll go for weak delete LaMona (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is no direct evidence, as noted above, of her notability. However, as discussed in the last AfD, that Vanderbilt University took and is storing her papers is circumstantial evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reason these letters are stored is that "The letters provide first-hand accounts of Latin-American foods, behaviors, language and customs of the people and the politics of the times." [1] It is her own account of everyday life that appears to form the basis for these letters being stored as a special collection. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2015 (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.