Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelite Sarah Brewer

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelite Sarah Brewer[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. PROD removed by page's creator (who claims he is the great grandson). Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Thomas Davidson Christie based on subject being discussed in Woman's who's who of America here, The Missionary Review here, the website of the Minnesota Historical Society here, the Congregational Year-book here, and other sources available on the net. It might however be not unreasonable to merge what bio material there is on her to the article on her husband, or vice versa. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note page onGender bias on Wikipedia. The notability of Carmelite Brewer Christie is that she saved over 1000 Armenians in Tarsus Turkey in in a week in 1909 and was the only American missionary in Tarsus during WWI. She directly aided Armenians impacted by the Tehcir Law who were deported on death marches and passed through Tarsus on their way to the deserts of what is now Jordan and Syria. I stated she was my great grandmother on the talk page, not in the main page. A serious editor would be more specific in explaining why the page should be deleted, rather than merely saying "subject lacks notability". Worse, a serious editor would not imply because she happened to be my relation, that obviously made her an article to nominate for deletion. I appreciate that an American witness to violent events in Turkey in 1895, 1909 and WWI could be controversial in some cultural/political circles. Rcollman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I apologize but will repeat the link to theGender bias on Wikipedia page. I appreciate the vice versa. However, Carmelite did not serve in the Civil War and have her letters published in 2010. Likewise, Thomas Davidson Christie was not in Tarsus in 1909 or during WWI. He was the President of the College, he went to lobby for relief of the Armenians during these times in Constantinople and in the US. His very capable wife refused to go and preserved the College and the lives of many Armenians. Arguably it was Carmelite's relations: David Josiah Brewer and Josiah Brewer which added to Thomas's international visibility.

If it was a common practice to show wives and their husbands together in wikipedia, I might agree to a merger. I think people are splitting hairs about this and in the process forgetting the larger picture. My opinion, if less than 10 real people visit a page in the first year, then delete it. Otherwise, let it mature Rcollman (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her name is at spouse's page. If something, someday is published about her - something might be, missionaries are interesting - the article can always be re-created. Meanwhile, she can be be found at Thomas Davidson Christie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her husband (which will mostly consist of redirecting. She appears largely to have had an undistinguished career as a missionary's wife, and is thus not separately notable: I would love to be wrong in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So guys, Eleanor's Roosevelt and countless other womens' names appear on their husband's pages, I can hardly wait to go wild with the recommendation of delete. Keep checking her references. Seriously, how many American women (much less Christian missionaries) dealt directly with the "Blood Shedder" as well as those carrying out his policies for "deportation" of Armenians? How many women in WWI were living openingly behind enemy lines, without their husband or any other American nearby? I am a male so no offense to others who have commented on this page, if several females vote on this, I will abide by their decision. Thanks for the comments Rcollman (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of sources pointing to this person's notability. She is certainly of historic interest.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what condition the entry was in when someone nominated it for deletion, but now there is more than enough material and there are more than enough sources to establish notability. However, more sources are always good. Also someone - I think the originator of the entry - has asserted above that "...she saved over 1000 Armenians in Tarsus Turkey [during some crisis that peaked in 1909]" That surely needs to be included clearly and simply in the intro section which, where possible, should answer not merely the question "Why is s/he notable?" but also "Why should I want to stop by and read this?" Success Charles01 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. COI is irrelevant if the article is presented in a neutral and documented fashion. Article needs work, not deletion. Multiple RS in books as cited above, and newspapers, like [1], [2] which need to be added to the file. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is now at least obvious from the article and sources. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly important in her own right. This is all suitably sourced and if merge, should be split into its own article due to plenty of content here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable on her own, clearly adequate sources, acted independently of her spouse. Not a second fiddle. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 14 December 2016 (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.