Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#6. If you want to make a nomination, wait for it to be off of the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lynch[edit]

Catherine Lynch (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)

The article is of good quality but no reason is given for Catherine Lynch's notability. The arguments given so far are that she represents a stratum of British society in the early 20th century, used as an example of this stratum by a reliable source and so is notable. I observe that such an argument can be applied to virtually everybody (aren't we all examples of some segments of society?), and while social history researchers naturally rely on such examples for their studies, the examples chosen themselves are not necessarily notable.

If the source(s) believe strongly that this particular Catherine Lynch is notable, then the reason should be stated in the article and the article kept in consequence. Otherwise, I recommend deletion. I encourage the reader of this note to observe that I am not arguing that all "non-elit" people aren't notable, I am arguing solely about this Catherine Lynch. I hope we can have a discussion with the article's main author Iridescent and Gerda Arendt who reviewed it for DYK. See also Selina Rushbrook and Lily Argent for the same reasons.

[EDIT] There is a single scholarly source for Catherine Lynch, and it appears to be self-published.

Iry-Hor (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concerns apply to the similar articles on Selina Rushbrook and Lily Argent. 31.75.77.137 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly even CSD A7. Article is sourced entirely to Swansea's 'Bad Girls': Crime and Prostitution 1870s–1914[1] by Elizabeth Belcham and to (what are probably her sources) local news reports and court proceedings. The Belcham book does not seem RSey, and regardless, this individual clearly fails WP:PERP even it was - very local coverage and one book (which is not available online, but from the citations in the article - from 8 pages in said book).Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC) modified some of the rationale here to reflect this is 8 pages in this possibly non-RSey book + very local news coverage from the time (from The Cambrian, Cardiff Evening Express, The Cardiff Times, The Glamorgan Gazette, Cardiff Weekly mail. Her father's death (which does not mention her) is sourced from two other local papers).Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the book and the author, little is available online however there were some local Swansea area events such as this one that describe it - [2] Drawing on photographs, mugshots and contemporary newspapers accounts this book explores the crimes of theft and of violence, often through drink or other social causes, which filled the police courts and prisons, and tells the stories of the lives of these extraordinary women who survived through adversity.. Per [3] the author was Inspired by mugshots of female prisoners from the Swansea Prison collection at the West Glamorgan Archive Service, author Elizabeth Belcham was inspired to delve into the lives of these women and discover how they had come to end up on the wrong side of the law. So basically written a century later by collating accounts from contemporary newspapers.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent definition...of a secondary source :D —SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A self-published one it would seem. The author herself worked (until retirement in 2013) at the West Glamorgan Archive Service and holds an MA.[4] Has not published much [5] - mainly local history.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, which reads If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and since it contains secondary sourcing it fulfills the requirement of at least one secondary source within it. Both academic texts (When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources) and contemporary newspapers("News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact are reliable sources, and provide the sole sourcing of the article: Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
    It's worth remembering that notability on Wikipedia does not require a person to have been notable in their lifetime, or even to have done anything notable.
    Incidentally, the perceived quality of the article is irrelevant: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Over all, the nomination seems to be confusing notability with individual significance, but of course, notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
    A7? Really?! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue this is a case of the opposite - this is a superbly written and referenced article - on a non-notable subject. The writing is good. Referencing (to Belcham's book which seems non-RS, and to local newspaper coverage) appears good. Even has photographs. Frankly - just looking at the article form-wise it seems like a notable subject (and hence - made it past DYK) - until you look at the particulars - who the subject was and where exactly this is sourced from (a few pages in a single book, and local reporting from the time).Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 deals with WP:CCSI, not notability. Other than that, you're right on every point. As for a CCSI, prostitute and petty criminal are a dime a dozen so none there. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also regarding the nom, while Iridescent can speak for themselves, Gerda Arendt has absolutely no need to respond here at all if they do not wish to; they certainly do not need to justify their acceptance of a DYK hook which, as part of the process, has had at least two other pairs of eyes on it subsequently (and frankly, considering Iridescent's—high profile, shall we say—I'm not surprised to discover it's had over a hundred views in the less-than three week period it has existed: even before appearing on the main page). —SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 First, shall we argue about the source itself then ? The publisher "Heritage Add-Ventures" is the publishing arm of a ventrue investment fund which might be best described as predatory publishing exacting extortionate fees from authors and readers. Second, this argument is a bit dangerous following it to its logical extreme means that any person mentioned in any book is notable enough. Just for Ancient Egypt you would have to include tens of thousands of additional article on nearly everyone because you will always be able to find a reliable source which published the original ancient source talking about this person.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to reply to every comment as you seem to be doing; please read WP:BLUDGEON. Whilst only an essay, it reflects community consensus regarding etiquette during proceedings such as these. Many thanks —SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 Just so I understand, me politely replying on a discussion page created for this purpose is bludgeoning ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the nominator's view, but "the arguments presented so far" as summarized in the nom are persuasive to me. This is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad This can be said of the life of everybody! Your life and mine are just as illustrative as hers, only of a different stratum and era. How does that make us notable ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the subject is from a different era is precisely the point. After all, if we had this level of detail about a person from the period you specialize in, wouldn't you want to include it? I understand that this approach could be taken to extremes, but thus far it hasn't been. If we ever become overwhelmed by historical articles about "the life of everybody" then we can reconsider the position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad Fair point but early 20th century and Ancient Egypt may not be a good comparison after all (my bad). The distance in time means that far more is known about random people of the early 20th century than of the 20th century BC and so the importance of recent individuals in exemplifying a wider society is diminished. However I am sensitive to your argument when I think about some decrees and letters mentioning corruption cases and the likes in eras of decline. Yet, in such case, the article is almost invariably dedicated to the source and what it says about the wider society, not on the person mentioned by the source. In general, litteracy was rare, writing costly and sources wouldn't talk about someone at length unless he/she was notable in some special way.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning delete - I did a google search for both the author and publisher of the secondary book source, it's really the only one that is relevant since the rest are over a century year old newspaper listings and the other 2017 source isn't making any mention of the subject, and came up with... almost nothing. I found nothing about the publisher after ten pages of google listings, and even in quotes I'm linked only to two sources both published by the same author. I can't tell if the only secondary source is a self-pub or not. A search for Elizabeth Belcham only tells me that she's an author and does not give me any credentials. I'm surprised somebody as experienced as Iridescent would use the source, unless they knows something I don't in which case please tell me. I'm amenable to change my mind on this point if somebody can give me something solid about either the publisher or author. As it stands, I don't support SN's assertion that this meets GNG given the lack of a verifiably reliable secondary source. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've conducted a mass ping of the editors who were involved with questioning the notability of the article on the talk page. It is expected that somebody will notify them. I've also notified the IPs on their talk page as they contested the deletion. I'm going to suggest that somebody notify all the wikiprojects that may be interested in this article. I don't know how to do that myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Keep - Per article appearing on DYK right now. AfD nom is not appearing on article page as well. Anyway, per above passes WP:GNG.If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD nom has been taken off the article because it's currently on the main page. That was intentionally done. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is inappropriate to put a current DYK article up for AfD... Period.BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ The article will be kept until the end of the DYK. AfD not appearing precisely for this reason. Article does not pass the WP:GNG argument because the only source is itself not reliable. DYK only offers proatection on the day the article shows up on the main page and does not constitute an argument for keeping the article on the long run.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been better to hold the nomination until tomorrow, but we're here. Actually, I suppose this article might never have been noticed for possible deletion if it hadn't been for the DYK blurb, which is an irony I'm sure Iridescent will note when he sees this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor was asked not to nominate this article while it appeared at DYK might I add. Did it anyway. But it is what it is. It will likely be kept anyway cosidering the rationales so far.BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ Your statement is false, I nominated the article and then Cwmhiraeth told me to keep it while it is DYK (see my talk page). Only later did Sagaciousphil further intervened on the talk page of the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; subject passes general notability guide. As mentioned by others here, the subject's life provides an important insight into the history in that era. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC) BabbaQ, although the AfD nom is temporarily not appearing on the article itself, a note has been left on the talk page explaining this.[reply]
Sagaciousphil I would genuinely like to understand how the subject's life provides an important insight into the history in that era and more precisely how it does so in a way that the life of anybody else from that era and social stratum does not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the subject meets GNG and, in my view, no benefit is to be obtained by deleting the article. In the early days of deciding what topics are "notable" it was agreed that we would not decide on whether, in our own views, a topic is important but on grounds of what external sources write about. These sources are not required to explain why they decided to write what they did. So, the reason Catherine Lynch is notable and Iry-Ho is not (it seems) is simply because people have written about Lynch. (BTW I think articles like this are important even if Lynch personally is not but my point of view here is irrelevant). Thincat (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat Aha ! I actually laughed at that (in a positive way, I am not being sarcastic). See Catlemur's argument below refuting your points.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article relies heavily on newspapers of local significance as such she cannot be considered notable even outside her hometown (WP:NOTNEWS). As such the person described in the article is not different from any other common early 20th century British prostitute. She is not related and had never interacted with any people worthy of an article. Had she been a man or were born later into the century the article would have been speedily deleted without a single objection (WP:NOTOBITUARY), yet people want to keep it simply for the quality of its prose. With a variety of sources available one might write millions upon millions of articles on people of her caliber, we DO NOT need that to get an insight of her profession or era when articles such as Prostitution in the United Kingdom exist.--Catlemur (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like that we have articles like this, which personalize a historic social reality and make it better understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I draw your attention to the guideline WP:ILIKEIT? Robofish (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, Lynch has no presence on the internet besides this Wikipedia page. Not a good indicator of notability. This information belongs on a blog or genealogy website, not an encyclopaedia. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that i have already advised the nominator against bludgeoning, but such poor arguments such as this cannot be allowed to pass. HappyWaldo, please see WP:PAPERONLY which notes that your requirement for internet presence is an argument to avoid in discussion such as this, as it has absolutely no basis in policy. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think her complete lack of internet presence (besides the article and this discussion) is incredibly damning. She wasn't even notable at a local level in the time she lived. I agree with Catlemur that Lynch is receive special treatment, probably because Wikipedia has been accused of gender bias. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The internet has been for a while now and no one posted anything about her until this article. To me, that is damning. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 I don't see how you take the right to allow or not someone argument to "pass" because you find it "poor". Appealing to Wikipedia regulations won't help your case on this. Nobody has the right to decide if someone's else argument "passes" the "test" of his/her opinion, except in cases of insults/threat etc. which is not the case in HappyWaldo's comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 while you're reminding people of ATA, could you also let Gerda Arendt know that her "I like it" vote is on equally poor footing. You don't seem to have an issue letting bad arguments stand... just ones you don't agree with. Strike reason: hostile, and not good faith. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointing; I expected more good faith from you. The fact that I hadn't commented on GA's post may well be because I hadn't seen it (not surprising considering the word swamp this has turned into). —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor: Actually, all arguments made at AfD should amount to a fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy; when an argument is made that is not based thusly, not only is it likley to (as I have done) be caled out, but the closing administrator will ignore it when they weigh the consensus. It is not my test; it is the test of consensus-by-policy; I understand you are not particularly experience at AfD so don't blame you for wanting it explained. Incidentally, it's not bludgeoning either: as the essay I pointed you to clearly says (Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I shall stop replying to comments, unless I am being asked to do so. That does not change my point that you cannot call someone's arguments "poor" and which should not be allowed to "pass". I don't see how you can invoke wikipedia policy on this, and this was my point (i.e. not that you invoke the policy on the discussion relating to deletion).Iry-Hor (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129: maybe I'm being unfair, but you have been rather hostile to both Iry-Hor and now HappyWaldo. I'll remove myself from here further, as it is quite apparent that I'm ticked off. Sorry, and have a good day. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent suggestion for me as well :) cheers! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even in the annals of crime or the lists of infamous cases this really doesn't rate. If this case were incorporated into an article on Prostitution in Victorian Swansea or some such then the argument that her life was indicative of the wider society of the time might have some heft. Without a larger context (which wasn't given here) her's is just a sad private tragedy. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 13:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you base this assertion on what guideline? BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" If you're arguing that her life is notable because it illustrates a larger class of people you would first have to define what that class is, i.e. place her life in a larger context. That hasn't been done. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 14:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How does appearance in 8 pages of a single self-published book satisfy BASIC - received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.?Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Do we know it's self-published? —SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would fail BASIC as being based on a single secondary source - regardless of being self-published - which we can assume it is as:
  1. Inability to locate the publisher on-line in any meaningful way (i.e. a website for the publisher or some description of the publisher).
  2. When locating books by the publisher("Heritage Add-Ventures"), it seems it only published 3 books by this author, as may be seen here - [6][7][8]. Publishers that are independent of their authors' will publish significantly more than a single author.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allow this and we may as well totally abandon the Notability Requirement. Aldiboront (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an interesting, well-written article and gives a little insight into an "ordinary" life. It is a welcome change to the fan-fiction bios of characters from Star Trek, etc. and the articles on here today, gone tomorrow so called celebrities. Plenty of "proper" encyclopedias and even the DNB include articles about people who are not household names. If they can do so, then surely Wiki can with its great resources of space and editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep (with a concern): The notability guidelines only say that multiple sources are "generally expected". It does not state that notability requires multiple sources. The source itself appears to be "reliable" and the Wiki article also includes links to archived newspaper articles that the source uses as it's foundation. I consider that the coverage in that source is enough to be reliable, significant and independent. As such I believe the article just barely scrapes into notability.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: My major concern is potential copyright infringement. With only a single source, how much of the article is copied wholesale from the book? I'm not sure if it is a problem for an AFD, and may only become an issue if actively sought out by the copyright holder, but it's something I feel I should note here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further up the page there has been some discussion about how an interpretation similar to mine may make anyone who has been written about in a book notable. I think that is an issue for the GNG not this article specifically. If there are issues with 'scraping into notability' on the basis of a single quite well researched, reliable & independent source, they should be taken up at the notability guideline itself for a wider discussion.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article is remarkably well-written and has numerous sources (as other participants in this discussion have noted), the article does not indicate that the subject is particularly notable. The article quality argument alone is inadequate, as I could write an excellent article about a topic I made up that obviously couldn’t be kept. Being mentioned in a few newspapers and the like doesn’t automatically make you notable. Plenty of criminals are mentioned in multiple news articles; do we need an article for every single drunk driver, thief, and murderer who ends up in the local paper? I doubt it (by the way, do we have a notability criterion for criminals? We need one). The “she reflects the society of the time” argument is not a particularly convincing one, in my opinion; I reflect modern society, so why can’t there be an article on me? Centibyte(talk) 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:PERP for the guideline.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Looking at that guideline, I see no indication that this woman passes. She’s not a celebrity, and her crimes aren’t particularly shocking or noteworthy. Centibyte(talk) 14:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along the lines of the similar comments above, with apologies to those who've worked on this article and put time into it. It's reasonable well-written and somewhat interesting, but it seems to fail the basic inclusion test of notability. There's practically nothing in the article that even amounts to a claim of notability; this seems to be an entirely unremarkable person who mostly escaped the attention of the media and scholars. I have to agree that if the article wasn't so developed, it would arguably be a case for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability based on how I read it, and I like there being an article such as this. Rainfall10110 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems to meet WP:GNG. Eric Corbett 14:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Most of the opposes are "Why not me" type arguments which surely are ludicrous because this lady does in fact have some sources reporting her life and the "Why not me" people never will. There's sex workers and criminals on Wikipedia and it is not out of the ordinary for one to be a notable figure. GuzzyG (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GuzzyGEric Corbett It does not pass GNG because there is a single source on her. In addition this source is self-published.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG - a person does not have to be famous to be notable in Wikipedia terms. There have been some incredibly weak delete arguments in this discussion, such as citing WP:NOTNEWS for a subject that died 100 years ago, and “this is the only place I’ve seen her on the internet.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does a single source by a self-published author qualifies for GNG ? This is a dangerous precedent to set.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the guidelines at GNG don't specifically require multiple sources, only that they are "generally expected". Multiple sources being "generally expected" rather than "mandatory" suggests that there is room for single sources to qualify a person for general notability. I would also like to make a comment that you have repeatedly stated your views on the AFD, and perhaps it's time to take a break and let the AFd proceed? I'm not sure how much more you could add to the discussion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's only a single self-published secondary source, per Icewhiz William Avery (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Icewhiz, Catlemur, Centibyte, Robofish. I have the greatest admiration for the work Iridescent does, often on relatively obscure topics, but there is, as far as I can see, no significant notability, and other than a single source and local press, there is not enough coverage of this person. If someone can once and for all show us why this person is notable — not just the social side of it — then maybe I can change my position. BTW, I completely disagree with HappyWaldo above, and I am happy to be engaged in conversation here by anyone who disagrees with my position and is happy to persuade me. Aiken D 15:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the decline in local news, one has to be relatively more remarkable in modern-day society to receive the same amount of news coverage as someone 100 years ago. If Catherine Lynch was born in the 1970s, she would likely not be considered notable according to the WP:GNG. But due to the time period of her birth she does fulfill the WP:GNG. I think this article exposes a contradiction between the application of the WP:GNG and subject-specific guidelines, whereas the general notability guidelines are in reference to secondary sources subjective perceptions of someone's achievements, the subject specific criteria are in reference to Wikipedia's perception of someone's objective achievements. Strong Neutral as policy doesn't even seem to cover this article yet. Figuring out whether we as an encyclopedia want to rely on the general notability guidelines or some vaguely defined notion of objective notability is outside the scope of this AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a good article and a worthwhile read. Wikipedia shouldn't become a dull, rule-obsessed site controlled by worthy, legalistic debaters. Nice to have a small article of someone unknown like this included amongst all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.169.114.19 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Impeccable writing on an important topic, even if that topic isn't recognized by some of our editors who are either uninterested in the poor or simply follow the old idea of history as the enumeration of the biographies of famous dead men. "no reason is given for Catherine Lynch's notability" is of course nonsense--what, we always need a "x is notable because"? The article explains it well enough: the subject is notable for having been held up as an example of "her class", and these are the kinds of things historians have been doing for the last few decades. There's a plethora of newspaper articles; these are sources that need to be written up with care, of course, because they themselves are biased and not always factually correct, but the fact that they exist is evidence of passing the GNG. As for the book, I can't see it, unfortunately, but not every non-academically published book is automatically excluded, and since the creator is--as far as I know--a decent human being and a valued long-time editor, I will accept that they made the judgment to include it carefully. Now, if we start deleting shit because there's only a few newspaper sources, that's fine and I'm all for it, but that's hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and this wouldn't be first on the list. Keep. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The study of history has broadened in recent deceades, to include non-prominent people, and not only in the form of overviews and statistics. The cited book is an example of this, and makes a study of Lynch among others. The extensive newspaper coverage also counts toward notability, local though it is. And the final decisive element, in my view, is the coroner's choosing to make an example of her. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 11 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catherine_Lynch&oldid=1068886855"