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 no consensus. The automatic headcount is 33 keep, 20 delete and 3 merge. Under these circumstances, the arguments for deletion would need to be very persuasive, or those for keeping very weak, to allow me to close this discussion with a consensus for deletion. The same applies, vice versa, with respect to a consensus for keeping. I do not think that this is the case.

The core issue here is whether these women, who were apparently quite ordinary people (or ordinary petty criminals) from around 1900, are notable because their lives were covered in a modern local historian's book, in addition to local newspapers and official records of the period. In most AfDs in which notability is the issue, editors can in good faith disagree about whether a given number of sources of a given quality are sufficient to support an article. This AfD is an example in point, with many valid policy- or guideline-based arguments made on both sides. Ultimately this is a matter of editorial judgment, and one about which we seem to broadly disagree. The uncommon number of well-reasoned neutral opinions do indicate that this is a bit of an edge case, or just a very novel one.

Additionally, there is quite a bit of discussion about historiography and our role in it. While we don't have as many alphabet-soup rules about that as we do about notability, here again I think that both sides make valid points that might merit a broader discussion. While these three articles are now kept by default, and I can't really envisage a consensus forming about their inclusion in a renomination any time soon, there might be a point in creating an RfC about some of the broader issues discussed here should a substantial number of similar articles be created and contested. Sandstein 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lynch[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was nominated for deletion yesterday, but the discussion was closed as "Speedy Keep" on procedural grounds (the article was in the "Did You Know?" section on the main page, which prevented its deletion). Now that the article is no longer on the main page, I have nominated it for deletion again to reach a proper consensus.

The subject of this article is non-notable. Some of the only sources on Catherine Lynch are a few local newspapers and perhaps a self-published book. She completely fails WP:PERP. Centibyte ^(talk) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are affiliated with the Lynch article and have similar issues:

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

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

Centibyte ^(talk) 17:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the many the "keep" comments in yesterday's AfD, including mine, in which I observed that "this is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period." See also User talk:Iridescent#Catherine Lynch notability in which the article-creator explains the significance of this article at some length. In no way would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia without this article than with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to understand "how part of society lived during the period," we probably need an article that discusses that topic directly. These articles are about non-notable individuals and should be deleted regardless of how well they reflect Crime in Wales. That's my view of this debate anyhow. Centibyte ^(talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrific articles and well referenced for their era. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the article was a good read, individual hookers generally are not notable.– Gilliam (talk) 17:13, 12 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.
The nomination itself is flawed: "perhaps a self-published book" is nullified by the "perhaps." —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all articles). These are very well referenced for their era, and as Newyorkbrad says, these are valid historical records of individuals who lived in an era when such coverage was typically limited to the landed gentry. I have no doubt that this series of articles are written about clearly notable persons who qualify for inclusion. P.S Centibyte, don't reply to every comment, it creates unnecessary edit conflicts. Nick (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per yesterday, and yes, the others also. - Nominator, please have the courtesy to link to the first nomination, - it seems a waste of time to make us all repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly passes GNG on the basis of the sources already cited in the article. Nom mischaracterizes sources as "local newspapers." First of all, The Cambrian covered all of Wales, hardly local. The Cardiff Times had a broad circulation in Wales as well. I'm not so sure about the other papers involved, but these two are enough. The same argument shows that the other two articles meet the GNG as well. This nomination is a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all articles): Though I understand the concerns about relevance, this could be ameliorated by Iridescent (or someone else) providing contextual information in the articles. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is a richer encyclopedia with these interesting articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Superbly written articles on a completely non-notable subjects - failing WP:GNG, WP:PERP, and WP:BASIC. All 3 are sourced to a few pages in a self-published book by an otherwise obscure author, and local Welsh newspapers "police blotter" reports. The single WP:SECONDARY source is not a RS, and in any case we would typically require multiple secondary sources even if it was. The local WP:PRIMARY newspaper crime/obit/marriage reporting is not grounds for notability - if it were, a humongous number of petty criminals with a few convictions that are strung together from reports such as this: Police: Man drove stolen car to court for stolen car charge, Bristol Press, 8 March 2018, Man with history of drug sale convictions charged again, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018, or Bristol woman pleads not guilty to prostitution charge, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018 would become notable on the basis of strung together local reporting (born, married, crime-conviction-crime-conviction-..., died). This is exactly how the author of the self-published book wrote it: starting with a mug shot in the archives and stringing together newspaper and court record reports [1] 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 [2] 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.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to refrain from voting as I see this situation as a catch-22. If we delete this article, it's just another shot at women (in the eyes of some). If we keep this article then we're devaluing the encyclopaedia as a whole. That seems like a blow to women who have contributed something of significance. Yes, there is an oversaturation of men and many such articles are piss poor. Delete them, don't bring women down to that level. I'll dissect the plausible arguments as best I can.

Sourcing: Citations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 (21/31) are all primary sources. (Note: I write history articles, and contemporary sources are considered to be primary sources in that department. As far as I am concerned, this is a historical article, and thereby historical sources are primary). They are not suitable to justify an article on the subject alone. More importantly, an article based solely on primary references would constitute original research (WP:OR) which is unacceptable on this encyclopaedia.
Citations 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23, and 31 (9/31) come from Belcham, 2016 an unreliable secondary source which only collates the primary sources and does not conduct any kind of analysis of the subject and is thus unsuitable for asserting notability. Not only could I find nothing about the publisher, what I did find was that the publisher has only ever published three works all of which are Belcham's work. It is implausible to call this anything other than a self-pub which is unacceptable as a source on anything other than in an article about itself (WP:SELFPUB).
Citation 8 (1/31) Gregory (2017) has nothing to do with the subject and is useful only for explaining the value of money from that era in modern terms. (21 + 9 + 1 = 31/31)
Overall: This is very bad sourcing. I maintain my surprise that Iridescent, who is very experienced, would write an article with such bad sourcing, which some above actually refer to as "good".
Quality of the writing in the article: Ignoring the fact that "quality" does not determine notability, I can only say that the article is well written. This doesn't justify a keep in my view.
Significance of the subject: Ok, some refer to the significance of the subject as a case study of poor women from the era. That's about the best argument I have seen on either AfD. Unfortunately, I can't support that assertion, or if I could I might be able to ignore the rules (WP:IAR). The article does not provide a greater context from which to view this subject. It is a biographical article with no analysis and little context. I'm sure you could write an article about Welsh women in the 19th Century and include this subject somewhere in there, though not without sliding very close to OR, but as an article in itself it doesn't do this. My knowledge or understanding of Welsh society in the 19th Century remains untouched. I don't know anything about it, and this doesn't really tell me anything that I didn't already know. Australia was built by such people.
General Notability Guideline (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. This may actually form a solid argument to keep, in that there is significant enough coverage, from acceptable primary sources that are independent of the subject. I am concerned, however, that our original research policy conflicts with GNG here as it states unequivocally that Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I do not accept Belcham as reliable secondary source and Gregory does not discuss the subject, which means that I find this article to be in violation of OR.
Perpetrator (WP:PERP): I find this policy to be irrelevant to the subject of the article. This subject is not known in connection to a criminal event or trial and no article on such an event exists. She is known via connection to the time period.

Conclusion: I can't bring myself to say delete given how well the article is written, but under no circumstances do I think that this article meets any criteria of this encyclopaedia. The same statements apply to the articles on Lily Argent and Selina Rushbrook. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Newspapers are not considered to be primary sources for WP purposes and there's no way these articles constitute original research. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE for information on what OR is, and see in there where we specifically consider mainstream newspapers to be among the most reliable of reliable sources. For purposes of establishing notability all that matters is that mainstream regional or national newspapers have covered the topic over a significant span of time. If your theory that newspapers are primary sources is correct, large swaths of WP would have to be deleted. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary sources count as primary per Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event + Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources, more importantly OR clearly states that you cannot write an article solely using primary sources. Unless you have a guideline or policy which states that newspapers do not count as primary, I'm going to stick to the letter of what is written. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that newspapers clearly are a secondary source (for an external / academic opinion, see Mannheim, J.B. & Rich, R.C., Empirical Political Analysis: Research Methods in Political Science' (New York, 2016), 53: "Newspapers are an excellent source of current and historical information including the texts of important speeches, commentaries on political issues, and results of public opinion polls"); it is also hard to see how one would suddenly have to provide a "guideline or policy" when we actively encourage editors to use them (and it tangentially raises the question why WP:DAILYMAIL was as necessary as it was deemed to be if it was merely a primary source and thus to be used sparingly!). User:Cullen328 summed it up on the WP:RSN very recently: "Someone expressed the opinion that newspaper articles are primary sources. Such articles can be primary or secondary, depending on context. A "police blotter" type newspaper article saying that a burglary was reported at 123 Main Street is a primary source, and is probably reliable. A lengthy article by a staff reporter about a wave of burglaries, including interviews with detectives, victims and detailed reporting of court testimony is a secondary source." It is the latter we are encountering here. The journailists are basing their pieces on police reports, court statements, interviews, witness reports; they are primary sources. To then base a subsequent piece on them is the esssence of secondary reporting. The operative word in the cited Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event is the word original—that police notebook, for example, or the witness statement. Not the report on such things. If everything that is produced contemporaneously is a primary source than the historiography of modern history is a fraud :) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the newspaper reporting is all straight PRIMARY with no analysis and context, skirting the question of sourcing a historical figure with no continued coverage based on at the time newspapers. Most of it, e.g. [3] or [4] is 2-4 narrow lines as part of a police or court blotter with many unrelated cases. The coroner reporter is longer at 2 paragraphs worth [5] of a coroner's inquest summary with absolutely no context on the person beyond the inquest.Icewhiz (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you Serial Number 54129: Is Geoffrey of Monmouth a primary or secondary source in your view? I mean ignoring the inherent unreliability of his famous Historia Regum Britanniae, I am only interested in whether it is a primary or secondary source. I suspect you would call it a primary source, which is to quote our utterly unreliable article on it: ... is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This is a difficult case and I am torn. I can understand the arguments put forward by a number of those !voting to delete, specifically that "anyone could be an example of something" or "this is just a collection of newspaper reports". But then the point here is that someone has written about Lynch et al and not you and me – Belcham (the newspapers thus become 'filler' information and are not necessary to establish notabilitym which potentially resolves the second issue). WP:PERP is trumped by GNG. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary resource and hence it is not up to us to decide that one book or subject is not sufficient to establish notability just because it's not what individual editors consider "notability" (the word) to mean. WP:Notability, the Wikipedia concept, depends on coverage in reliable secondary sources, and we should not be selective in using these to form articles on Wikipedia even if we don't think the subject matter is particularly notable in a subjective sense. Hence I want to lean keep in this case. I want to see this article kept and I applaud the intent behind and the prose and research which form it. The only thing that is stopping me is that I am not convinced Belcham is actually a reliable source, and that to me is important in maintaining the integrity of WP as a source of knowledge. --Noswall59 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all: firstly because of yesterdays AfD of the Lynch article whuch was not closed solely for it being on the main page. But because a clear Keep result was emerging. Secondly all articles are referenced and within WP:GNG. Any concerns should have been raised at respectove talk pages. BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again, just like last time most of the opposes boil down too "why don't i have a article" esque votes, this woman has been written about over 100 years after her death as a case study of her background, which implies notability. To expect mass media level of coverage of an article BEFORE mass medias time is absolutely ridiculous. GuzzyG (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG have you read either of the two oppose votes? (IceWhiz or Gilliam) because yet again, just like last time most of the opposes boil down too "why don't i have a article" esque votes is the most bullshit statement I could have expected to see on this page. Do not expect to lie, and walk away without being called out on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with the AFD nominator in the original nomination "in my opinion; I reflect modern society, so why can’t there be an article on me?", but i am lying? I do think people are being extra harsh on this due to the details of the subjects life. GuzzyG (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're literate in the English language then you are fully aware that 1 =/= most, but 1=1. So yes, you are lying. I have no qualms with the rest of what you've said, but you can't deny that you have deliberately misrepresented the "oppose" votes. You would be better served to strike the patently false, then by arguing this shoddy case. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was my argument entirely faulty? Centibyte ^(talk) 18:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no more or less than I expect anybody elses to be. Perp isn't a guideline I would have used; GNG and a study of the sources is what I chose to focus on. I wouldn't have advised a second AfD so soon after the first, but if we can put this article to bed (either as a keep or delete) than that is all I can ask for. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, stop your battleground tactics. If you can not handle this AfD then do not comment. Being rude does not solve anything.BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I don't think you have any clue what that policy is referring to. You would be hard pressed to find me a competent editor who would accuse me calling out a lie as being a battleground mentality. Good fucking luck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, take a deep breath. Lol.BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: PERP is highly relevant. The sourcing we have here is primary local news covering crime (their arrests, charges, and conviction), a mug shot (or to be precise - an inmate photo), and reporting on the coroner's inquest into their unusual deaths - this is standard local crime reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you've pinged me Icewhiz. The asserted notability is not in relation to a criminal event or trial. So I have no reason to assess her notability against that criterion. If I assert notability based on "historical significance" (even if it's about a criminal) and you reply "doesn't meet perp" we are talking past each other and not to each other. Of course, you can assess the article against that criteria, but I don't see a reason to do so. Now, I am off to sleep, because it's getting late (or early depending on where you live). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to leave Iridescent to repeat the points so ably made on their talk page—the first nomination offers a good example of what we miss in depth of argument when nominators fail to notify the creators and significant contributors to articles they put up for deletion—and repeat my argument with respect to Lynch that I made at the first AfD. It was: The study of history has broadened in recent decades, 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) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know I would very much like to see Iridescent's response here. In all likelihood, they are the only person capable of convincing me to switch stance, as they are the only person who has conducted any research into the article. In particular, Iridescent, I would need a solid justification for your use of a secondary source for which publishing details are difficult to find, which is likely a self-pub, and the authors credentials. I have them, but I need confirmation that you did a solid background check before you used the source. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir Mr rnddude While understandably impassionated, Iridescent's points were not that convincing, essentially revolving around the poor coverage that Welsh society and particularly Welsh women receive on Wikipedia. As noted by Iridescent his/her-self, the true origin of this problem is the "colonial" attitude of the British (English ? As a French, I don't know what word to use not be offensive, apparently I broke the etiquette last time on this), not Wikipedia bias. I am all for more coverage of Wales and women in general, but I have trouble seeing how early 20th century prostitutes are really a progress here. Instead, an article on the general issue of Victorian and Edwardian-era prostitution in Wales would have been much better and could have included small sections on the ladies concerned here as examples.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Yngvadottir, NYB and others. This meets GNG and is encyclopaedic in scope. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they pass the WP:GNG. Notability is not a matter of importance or significance. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Them All. The articles rely heavily on newspapers of local significance and a book of questionable literary merit as such the subjects cannot be considered notable even outside their hometown (WP:NOTNEWS). As such the people described in the articles are no different from any other common early 20th century British prostitute. They are not related and had never interacted with any people worthy of an article. Had they been men, common housewives 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 their 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. I frankly do not see how the procedure used in WP:PORNBIO cannot be extended to prostitutes. Wikipedia's obsession with and glorification of criminals not matter how petty they are has reached its crescendo.--Catlemur (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Well researched and well written and illustrated, but alas these individuals all fail the applicable tests for notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 1) articles have essentially one single self-published source for me this fails GNG; 2) everybody is an example of some stratum of society so this is no ground for notability; 3) being talked about is not in itself sufficient for notability.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I'm looking at this along the same lines as @Catlemur:. Almost all of the references appear to be repeating or elaborating on Belcham's research, and her book is the only clearly not-primary source. I can't find the publisher, and while the book sounds like a fascinating piece of research, I just can't find the interest in it yet (though I wouldn't be surprised if it picks up) outside of a local author presentation. And I see problems in repeating these biographies outside the context of the book: in-period, these almost epitomize non-notable criminality. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this is from the previous nomination yesterday) per Icewhiz, Catlemur, Centibyte, Robofish etc. 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 am happy to be engaged in conversation here by anyone who disagrees with my position and is able to persuade me. Also, the other bios should be deleted as they are similar in terms of notability and sourcing. Aiken D 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serial Number 54129. Meets GNG. There is sufficient coverage in contemporary newspaper reports and a secondary source (which although it has been repeatedly referred to as self-published in both this AfD and the previous one, no-one has actually been able to show that it is.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher has only published works (a total of 3) by this author [6][7][8], which is indicative of being self published (note that usually we do not accept sources on faith, burden is or those who want to use a source - though in this case it is clear). If this is not self published (99.9%), the the single-author publisher is reliant and not independent of the author.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability requires reliable secondary sources, the book is obviously secondary because Lynch et al didn't write it, so we're left with a discussion of whether what the author has written is reliable. Given the plethora of facts, depth of knowledge displayed and distance of the author from the subject by 100 years, I find it hard to see how her work is unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT is not how we asses reliability (and note that we, per policy, would require multiple secondary sources, not one). The author is a retired local archive worker with very few publicationss or citations. Collating newspaper articles when you have access and a digital archive is not difficult - though it is fraught with some peril of reliability regarding multiple persons sharing a name or when the underlying early 20th century newspapers are not reliable. Lack of a reputable academic publisher or a credible peer reviewed setting is also a major issue in terms of reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the published book source is reliable because it is full of facts not because ILIKEIT. There are multiple sources, the book and newspaper articles, as is commonplace on wp. Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article and then keep. As individual articles, I'd say delete for non-notability. However, I'm reluctant to lose the work that went into these pages, and I think the best solution would be to merge them into a single broader article called something like History of prostitution in Swansea. That could address the notability issues (since arguably there's a notable underlying topic here, even if these individuals aren't) as well as the duplication of content between the pages. Robofish (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets GNG. To me, the arguments for deletion really are about not understanding sourcing in the pre-Google age. Newspapers "count", books "count" and so do other dead tree sources; it must be noted that publications from the pre-internet age also may have been authored by people such as respected local journalists or historians who may have had a lot of periodical publications but relatively few books. The sources all seem reliable here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have spent countless hours going through 19th century newspapers, and they are full of lurid and sensational accounts of crime. If I wanted to, I could exhume many long dead and forgotten criminals who were far more notable in their time than Lynch. But for whatever reason, these criminals faded into complete obscurity (like Lynch), so I don't think it's my job as a Wikipedian to confer notability upon them. That would amount of WP:OR. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your POV comment.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another comment: I'll support keep for Lynch if someone writes a folk song about her and it goes viral. If not, this discussion will stand as the full extent of her revival, and her Wiki page from then on will receive two or three views a month from the Catherine Lynches of the world when Googling their names. We all know this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a claim of "importance or significance" isn't necessary for a biography to meet WP:GNG (though there is generally a correlation), and I see no arguments for deletion other than noting the lack of such a claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading through all of this, I do see the argument for deletion: it's that the newspaper sources are primary sources, and the one modern book was self-published. As long as the accuracy isn't disputed, the fact that the book was self-published isn't relevant; WP:PEOPLE states What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. As far as the newspaper accounts being primary sources, something like [9] (currently ref#22 "Advice to an Ex-Prisoner") is certainly a primary reference. If all the newspaper references are that minimal, there is a reasonable argument to delete this. My reading of GNG still suggests it should be kept but I would consider a merge proposal (Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete great article.....about a totally non-notable subject, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand. Your !vote right now sums up to nothing.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per the time of the sources. Notability in early 1900, especially for a woman, is not necessarily notability now. The subject was considered notable enough at the time to have newspaper articles on her. We cannot apply notability principles for 2000s with notability of the very early 1900s and must use the sources as our standard. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Notability is not comparative. We don't determine notability because a subject is more or less notable than another subject and can't be an argument for deletion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:50, 13 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. Hey, all this sounds familiar. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Important topic" What did she do besides sell her body for money and then drink herself into oblivion? We're supposed to treat this unremarkable prostitute and Charles Darwin with equal regard? - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. We have articles on Earth and 21062 Iasky, are they "equal"? Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, we should limit ourselves to the 1000 most notable topics, and delete the rest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - User:Huldra and User:Mr rnddude sum it up. The sources are a single book by a local researcher, either self-published or produced by a local press so small that it's pretty much invisible, with a stack of scraps of information from local contemporary newspapers, which are presumably taken from the one book that has assembled them. This =/= significant secondary sources: it's a single secondary source of low status plus loads of primary sources extracted from it. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here of what the newspaper entries are: they're not feature articles but routine reports of local court proceedings and the like, and getting mentioned in them just doesn't confer notability. I suppose it's conceivable that the histories of these women / existence of this book may now be picked up from Wikipedia after the profile they're receiving and disseminated more widely, so that this may eventually turn out to be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:53, 13 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) 03:07, 13 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) 03:07, 13 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) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, somebody wrote a term paper on this loser, so she's definitely notable now^[sarcasm]. And look at her, you can tell just by looking that she's notable, that face tells a thousand stories. Plus that lady who coughed up hundreds (at least!) of dollars to get a vanity publisher to print her write-up that was used as the main source (my mother got some poems published that way, they really work). And she died so young, this is how people get notable, somebody cared. Have a heart, people, we don't need encyclopedic standards, we need to make sure such people get noticed. – Athaenara ✉ 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "... somebody wrote a term paper"? This is rather offensively phrased. I think the sarcasm is fully as unhelpful as you feared it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - An editor's writing proficiency has absolutely nothing to do with notability. How is GNG at all met by an article almost entirely (aside from a self-published book) composed of primary documents? Those documents, by the way, are mainly 2-3 line blurbs. Perhaps because the article's creator is highly respected or because the subjects are women some editors are willing to give a free pass, but you are doing no one--women or Wikipedia-- any favors by ignoring inclusion guidelines you would apply anywhere else. GNG is not met, we are not the news (even old news!), and original research--no matter how well done--is still just that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Some of the newspaper reports such as this are more than passing mentions and are not primary (they are interpretively reporting what other people said in court). WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO do not deprecate local sources. Is there any evidence that the book is not reliable? To me it seems to be confirmed by the press reports. Our principle for "notability" is not that we decide based on our own opinions of importance but on whether a topic has been written about in multiple, independent, reliable sources – these sources are not in themselves required to be "notable". Thincat (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The example you provided is merely a summary of the inquest into her death. Newspapers back then frequently reproduced similar inquests and/or coronial findings on the death of any random derelict, as long as the details were eye popping. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat is right in his assessment of the newspaper sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just providing context for anyone who might be swayed into thinking that Lynch received a unique amount of coverage here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThincatThis is setting a dangerous precedent, e.g. a crackpot came in my town to give talks in a local planetarium about how we originated all from space (as in our ancestors came to earth in a spaceship). His talk was announced in a few local newspapers. Does that mean he is now notable enough to have his wiki article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she received enough coverage to satisfy GNG then yes. We have millions of articles on some very esoteric subjects. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reporting on the coroner's inquest linked to above is the definition of PRIMARY. No analysis. No context on the subject. No commentary - a summary with many quotations from the inquest. Furthermore - there is a WP:V/WP:OR in verifying that the Catherine Lynch in the newspaper report is related to Catherine Lynch/Driscoil mentioned in previous reporting. In this case - we do have a husband's name and address - however in previous newspaper reports we don't even have that - merely having the name or name and age. E.g. [10] which mentions a Catherine Driscoil, prostitute, from Bargeman's-row - there could be more than one individual with the name. None of these PRIMARY reports even bothers to connect the dots to previous incidents - so we are left with guessing that it is the same individual based on the name. Belcham's self-published book, which is not a RS, does connect the dots - but in some cases - she probably did the exact same guesswork (in others - she possibly also had a jail or court record that might have had more, and she probably also had a marriage license and birth record - all of which won't help connection the June 2014 event that ended in a 10 shilling fine) - this leaves us with an article that is possibly of a composite character composed of a number of different individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For many of the reasons given here and in the previous failed nomination. In particular the coroner's comments are a small but noteworthy slice of social history. Wikipedia would be the poorer for not containing articles such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.185 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.132.228.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete or Merge. WP:PLOT, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The argument that she is illustrative of her class doesn't satisfy the condition for an encyclopedic article since it neither defines what that class is or offers any context. If this article were included in an article on Victorian prostitution, say, and explained why she was typical then there really wouldn't be a problem.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 15:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Lynch and the others have little notability on their own, but as a group, may be at least locally notable. I find the stories to be interesting, but not notable. There are probably others which could be included in a new grouped article. I am not sure exactly what the title of the new article should be, but probably something with Swansea in the name. Also, as others have noted, the articles rely heavily on primary and self published sources for notability. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder whether even the topic "Prostitution in Swansea" is notable, any more than prostitution in any port or other city. How notable IS Swansea in prostitution terms? Locally notable, as you say, but more widely? I'm not sure. There are (as yet) no "Prostitution in [UK city]" articles for comparison.Eustachiusz (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I don't think an article on Prostitution in Swansea would be unreasonable or unnotable. There ought to be a synoptic article on Prostitution in Victorian or Georgian London, but there isn't. There have been monographs on prostitution in Victorian Liverpool and Colechester.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 13:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been considering this for a number of days. I would need to see a copy of the secondary source used here (Belcham, 2016) before deciding. Like several others here, I am not comfortable with the extensive use of contemporary (sometimes local) newspaper reports as sources, with only one secondary source to justify this collating of the sources (I say this as someone who has taken this approach in other articles, but it has to be done with great care, particularly given the nature of some of the newspaper reports - I would encourage those participating in this discussion to go and read all the newspaper reports used as sources - they are all online). Iridescent's comments can be seen here (including some suggestions for additional sources for further editing of the articles). Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Edited and extended comment. Carcharoth (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue is 60% of votes think Belcham and the other sources are sufficient and 40% don't. The delete votes are a little stronger than the keep votes but there is no compelling argument. Your "I can't make my mind up comment" appears to sum the situation up quite neatly. However I think it is best to vote either way, there are two questions which you could ask yourself. 1) How much does having these articles benefit the readers of wikipedia? 2) How reliable is Belcham likely to be? Szzuk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of Delete rationales here that are basic She is not notable because I say so. Most of the Keep rationales are based in guidelines. Anyway this is a dead end AfD since Delete seems to be very far away. Just like in the first AfD. The AfD shouldn't have been initiated in the first place again. Hope when all three articles are kept that a discussion can be held at respective talk pages instead. BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a compelling bad policy argument on how Belcham (published via Heritage Add-Ventures) would be a RS. And PRIMARY newspaper accounts (and mainly short blurbs) are not appropriate sourcing either. The problem with this AfD - is opening the door for more such ILIKEIT articles based on court/police/coroner routine reporting in the media - if these are retained, then by the same standards - many petty criminals with 4-5 convictions (or more) would be notable based on the same level sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: brief note that this discussion was referenced off-wiki here (discussion board at The Straight Dope). Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. The whole "Great Man" way of writing history has been out of favor for at least 50 years. In fact, it is so out of favor, there's been a backlash against the backlash and some historians have argued that the pendulum has swung too far against writing biographies or dealing with "great men". If the delete "voters" don't want to be seen as being against articles on women, then perhaps they might try to eliminate the large numbers of small articles on men without nearly as much sourcing as these articles. (Examples such as Darren Newton (which is sourced (and I use the term loosely) to IMDB), Chrysippus of Cnidos (which is sourced entirely to primary accounts), Ma Chul-jun (which is basically only statistics), David Harris Underhill (which is sourced to newspaper accounts and the library he worked for... at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill exists but I'll note that the nominator dropped the nomination because having an obit in the New York Times was considered enough to pass GNG... ), Walt Vezmar (sourced to one local newspaper story and a football stats page), Francesco Perrone (sourced only to a stats page), or Merle M. Rasmussen (sourced to companies he worked for and what looks like a similar self-published work as [http://www.mongoosepublishing.com Mongoose publishing is an RPG publisher).) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merle M. Rasmussen probably should go. David Harris Underhill is a difficult case; one would need to figure out whether the New York Times obituary would make him notable. If not, his article should also be deleted. Centibyte ^(talk) 13:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't start AFD which would have 0 hope of being closed as delete. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that canvas note at the top is borderline rude. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a push for deletion off-wiki L3X1. How is it rude to put a warning notice in response to it? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Not rude per se, but I consider it bad faith (no reflection on whoever put it there). For there being an off wiki push, the hordes of IPs making non-policy based votes and vandalistic edits have not materialised, so the canvass notice appears (in my eyes) to be directed at all of Iri's TPWs and the dozens of editors who participated in the first nomination. That's why I think it comes across as either bad faith or passive agressive. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who put it there, L3X1, is a TPW of Iri's, a participant of the last AfD, and one of the earliest keep !voters in both AfDs. It'd be kind of strange for them to be attacking themselves... I get the misapprehension, just poorly timed. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent choice of words, Mr rnddude, since it most certainly was a misapprehension :p Considering that off-site canvassing had been mentioned fourteen minutes prior to my template, the timing was purely apposite...@L3X1, the reason for the template was that one of the off-wiki canvassed explicitly said You can vote for the article's retention or deletion on this Wikipedia page. I argued for its deletion^{My emph.}; it was to them and theirs that it was directed. Not to any of Iridescent's TPWs—of which I might be one of the most annoying :) Happy Sunday all. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Each of these three not individually Wikipedia:Notable (routine newspaper coverage, and a few pages in a book that is quite possibly self published) though there is something to be said for an article about the group they represent. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article covers WP:BIO as well. To keep these articles is beneficial for Wikipedia. That other articles about similar people could be created as mentioned above has no baring on these three individuals notability. Speculations on books being possibly self published or the newspaper sources being routine or local are at best speculative. There are no consensus either way concerning those issues though Keep !voters gives a strong case about it being notable. My final word on this matter. BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, the article fails both GNG and PERP. It fails GNG because of the clause that multiple sources are generally expected and this article has only one source that gives more than trivial coverage, the others all being routine reports from the newspaper law courts column. It fails PERP IMO because there is no notable crime here, just petty theft and what-have-you, there are countless thousands of petty criminals with similar records. There may well be a case for an article on crime and prostitution in Wales in the given era, where typical case histories get mentioned, or perhaps even an article on the book on which this article is based, but the notion of having a separate article for every petty criminal who happened to get a few lines in one particular (and in this case possibly self-published) book just strikes me as absurd. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three Articles all meet WP:GNG. History is not only about the great and the good. Articles like these provide historical insight and context. Infinitely more notable than tuppenny ha'penny celebs "referenced" to today's tabloid press. J3Mrs (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Note - The AfD was closed as No Consensus. Then re-opened again. BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD as WP:SNOW consensus with the following rationale : "I think we've heard enough opinions from all sides, but Mr rnddude has effectively summed up the arguments for keeping and deleting. The discussion is now starting to descend into personal attacks, so I think it's best we put a lid on it now. (If anyone objects to the early close, whether through a desire to explore new ground or just "it's against policy!", feel free to revert this close and carry on....)" Two editors objected, so as specified, I re-opened. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am on your side completely that is why I just can not agree to it being re-opened. This is a No consensus discussion, there will never be a consensus for either all out Keep or all out Delete. This discussions should have remained closed. But since it is re-opened, a few extra days of Keep and Delete rationales and personal attacks can be expected. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on male bias. Does this AfD represent an attack on women? If these characters were male would we be deleting them? 90% of the editors on WP are male. I have just read a very cogent argument on the article creators talk page that this is indeed the case. I'm uncertain and throwing this one into the pot. Szzuk (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting view actually. And something to think about actually.15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)

It doesn't but it is thrown out there as a "reason" to keep. I have written handfuls of articles on female musicians and athletes, but voted deleted here. Am I suddenly "against women" because I gauged these subjects against the same notability guidelines I apply anywhere else? I don't think so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak only for myself. If this was an article on a male subject I would have !voted to delete outright. Not the fence-sitting "here's an assessment, now do what you will stance" that I've taken here. I read Ealdgyth's comment, and I believe it fails to address the reason why this article ended up here in the first place. Stubs don't get DYK level attention. What happened here is that an article of contentious notability went up onto the front page under a spotlight where it couldn't slip in under the radar. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these were male subjects with this level of coverage (and not under some silly policy provided exceptions such as NFOOTY) - this discussion would've been a SNOW delete.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of the sex of the three principals is a red herring being used by "deleters" to in some way open a second front by suggesting the only reason most of us want to keep this article is for some equality reason. This is a straw man (or woman!) argument - none of the earlier keep explanations mentioned gender. Wikipedia has no shortage of articles about women that might be deleted - such as one about Marlene, the wife of a minor character in a sitcom. But in this case keep is not a spurious attempt to create a "gender balance", it a clear reflection that these are good articles, well-written, containing noteworthy information and exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is categorically untrue, reading the comments previously written, a number of keeps explicitely ask the question whether we would even have considered deletion had the articles' subjects been men. I believe we have here a case of discrimination in the opposite sense, that had these women been petty men criminals, they wouldn't have an article in the first place. Read Iridescent's own words on it : he/she also explicitely says that a central motivation in creating the articles is that we have nearly nothing here on late-19th early-20th century Welsh women. Thus, I think the argument of the gender of the articles' subjects is very much central and play heavily into a number of keep opinions.

"a number of keeps explicitely (sic) ask the question whether we would even have considered deletion had the articles' subjects been men". Simply and clearly not true. People may have noted the original article was about a woman, but the deleters' male/female argument only started when they suggested that was an issue. This is not a question of whether the article concerns men or women, but whether it is a good entry. Which it quite obviously is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.240.254 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - sourcing seems fine to me and indicates notability. Those who think otherwise are advised to ferret through some of my creations because I'm sure I've done the same sort of thing on occasion and thus far no-one has batted an eyelid. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Striking - not getting involved in debates about male/female bias. The discussion here is descending into issues of political correctness, for which it is well known I have little time. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment In some respects this would be along the lines of having a biography on everyone who shows up in Joe Manning's Lewis Hines Project, except that his website is well-known and this book is obscure — not that it deserves to be: I'm frankly thinking about getting a copy because I'm interested in English social history of the period, and so is my wife. But it is so for now, and the interest in these specific women arises right out of there. Similarly, Manning has been able to produce limited biographies on some of the kids who appear in Lewis Hine's famous photographs of child labor, mostly through interviews with their relatives and descendants. But as far as I know, the only case of a WP bio of these kids is Shorpy Higginbotham, the namesake of a popular historic photo site, and that bio is borderline, being essentially a copy of Manning's work and with all the interest in it inherited from the photo site. And Manning's work really needs to be read as a whole: it is the cumulative reading of the lot which informs (Higginbotham's short life, for example, is atypical). Petty criminals in England are no doubt easier to document than child laborers in the US, particularly when the police blotter appears in online archives of the local papers, and perhaps that has helped discourage giving each of Mannings's/Hines's subjects an article, but in the large, the situations are essentially alike. If we had an article on Victorian prostitution as we surely have an article on child labor, this book, if picked up by others, would likely be a valuable source; but this article and its sisters seem to be written because the primary sources were accessible, not because any kind of notability standard was met. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment looks like an argument for keep but you want to delete. I think WP will alter guidelines to correct for historical bias at some point in the distant future - and there will be no need for AfD discussions on articles like this and the ones you describe. Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we keep getting arguments of "anything you can get info on can have an article", which is antithetical to WP:NOT in almost every way. But no, I cannot see how you get from what I said to the notion that any person who is used as an example in a book or website is therefore notable and should therefore have an article. That's pretty much the opposite of my point. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per —SerialNumber54129. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the argument that User:Yngvadottir (and others) make, about the study of history has broadened in recent decades, to include the lives of non-prominent people, is a good one. However, that does not make the lives of each and every one of non-prominent people notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. (Instead we could perhaps need on article on, say Prostitution in Wales ...presently only a redir to Prostitution in the United Kingdom) Also: there are lots of pictures out there of other petty criminals, just google mugshot and Australia to get a flavour. Should we have an article on each of them? I sincerely hope not. As for being deleted for being a female....This is a distraction, I am female myself, but will still vote delete for these articles on totally non-notable females. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 1) Not notable. Catherine Lynch et al do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (persons). Specifically: crime perpetrators may be notable if their victim is a “renowned national or international figure” or if the “motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is unusual.”

A. Beware circular reasoning: The fact that a Wikipedia article has been written for a person can’t be used as evidence the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This should hold even if the article was has stirred significant discussion/controversy, or been featured on the Main Page.

B. The only secondary source appears to be Belcham (2016). This does not meet the GNG which states “a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent.” Belcham 2016 is a highly obscure local history. It does not appear in the Library of Congress Catalog, nor does any title of the publisher “Heritage Add-Ventures” appear in the Library of Congress Catalog. It is not even for sale on Amazon (except for a single $93 copy). Note also that in the Guideline “sources” is plural. This corresponds to the guidance that “multiple sources are generally expected” and “Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.”

2) Red flags indicate probable Original Research. The OR policy is that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” Yet in these articles the great majority of sources are primary: local contemporaneous newspaper accounts. The sole secondary source, Belcham 2016, does not fit any of the listed categories of “most reliable sources” : “Peer-reviewed journals, Books published by university presses, University-level textbooks, Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses, or Mainstream newspapers.”

3) I acknowledge that the specifics of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines must be determinative here. Nevertheless I would like to comment on a philosophical issue that is raised: what is Wikipedia?

In 1968 the visionary economist Kenneth E. Boulding (see Wikipedia for bio) looked one generation into the future and saw this: “One visualizes a computer on which the totality of recorded history has been coded and from which samples can be taken . . .”

It seems that the proponents of these articles think Wikipedia is – or should be – Boulding’s computer. Since these articles represent rich data points illustrating important issues (treatment of women and those judged by society to be criminals, and the social history of mental illness and of addiction), shouldn’t they find a home on Wikipedia? The answer must be no. Wikipedia is organized at every level to be an Encyclopedia, not an archive. Unless an archive is complete, the selection of material that is made cannot be considered free of bias.

That said, these articles have value, and I would love to see them removed to an appropriate site built for the study of the lives of common people. Local historians (disclosure: like me) have created millions of fascinating and meaningful biographical samples drawn from the lives of common people. Although the lives of all of us common people collectively may be more important that those of “Great Men” – see Wikipedia article on “Annales school” – Wikipedia is just not set up to be a catalog of these biographical data points.

Please note that Wikipedia editors can use the Further Reading section to steer interested readers to Internet sites that are such catalogs. Paugus (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try to take a less US-centric view of things? The book is on Amazon (here), and the absence of a copy in the LoC catalogue means little given this is a UK publication. While the British Library does not have a copy of this book, it holds others by Belcham and by Heritage Add-Ventures (also under the name Heritage Ventures). - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon actually does not hold the book. It does have an entry (which it does have for just about any ISBN) - and located a single outside vendor - in this case a book shop in Ammanford [11](less than 20km from Swansea) selling this book. Is there any indication that "Heritage Add-Ventures" or "Heritage Ventures" (the one without the Add- seems to be used by a venture-capital firm) is a reputable publisher?Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm afraid you seem to be missing my point. It was made in response to errors in the previous statement: the book is on sale through Amazon - in other words it does not matter one jot whether they hold stock or not (and their business model is to hold as little stock as possible, so that's no great surprise). I don't know what you're talking about with the venture capital company, I'm afraid: the publisher has its books listed with the British Library under the names "Heritage Add-Ventures" and "Heritage Ventures". It has been publishing books since the early 1990s. I have no real wish to carry on the discussion (I've already !voted above, and only added to my comment to correct obvious errors), but you have a good day. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to put this into perspective, the UK copyright libraries hold copies of all books published (either commercially or self-published) in the UK (the Bodleian also has EB's publications: I haven't checked the other libraries): it doesn't imply anything whatsoever about their quality, just that they were published in the UK: so it's a meaningless criterion. All four of EB's books or booklets were published by Heritage (Add-)Ventures, who have not (according to the online library catalogues of the two of the copyright libraries that I've checked) published anything by anyone else. As for Amazon, anyone can sell any book on it, so that too means NOTHING.Eustachiusz (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newyorkbrad above, and thus also per most of the "keep" comments in both AfDs and in User talk:Iridescent#Catherine Lynch notability in which, as Newyorkbrad has already said, the article-creator explains the significance of this article at some length. I also agree with NewyorkBrad's statement that 'In no way would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia without this article than with it' and that consequently, regardless of any Wikilawyering arguments to the contrary, it should be kept per WP:IAR and per the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P5). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of justifying Wikipedians' actions, and none of the delete !votes that I see are wikilawyering, as they are not going against the spirit of the guidelines. Can we reserve the term wikilawyering when people are actually wikilawyering? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the wikilawyering comment I suggest you do not use wikilawyering to dispute it. BabbaQ (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self-published recent source, and a string of trivial mentions in the contemporary local press to document a sad but utterly unremarkable life. "The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.": the article fails to do this, just makes it clear that these are run-of-the-mill petty criminals / victims of circumstances. Not even the number of convictions is really remarkable, e.g. one of the sourecs in the article discusses equally briefly another female alcoholic with 91 convictions[12]. A source like this makes it abundantly clear that the most minute and obscure trivia of court were recorded in the local papers, not singling out anyone or any class for additional attention. These three articles are based solely on routine coverage and one self-published source, and lack the indepth reliable sources to show any actual notability for the subjects. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons Fram lists above. Also, I've just re-read the GNG, and don't see how this subject meets them at all. Dcfleck (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG criteria should trump the people notability standard where verifiability is clear, and the local newspapers have proper editorial controls and so support GNG. In any case, we should not be deleting high quality, verifiable content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. A lot of editors I respect have opined that this article meets the GNG, but I simply don't see how, and such a claim is a dangerous one, a slippery slope towards having lots of BLP1E-type articles for deceased persons. But I don't think we should delete articles that make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia just because we are worried about someone trying the same thing in a less competent way. A long time ago that was our argument against having articles for every school on earth, and we were wrong about that one. Most of them are crappy but the encyclopedia has endured. Iridescent is pushing the envelope of what Wikipedia can be, and there used to be a time we would encourage that, instead now we are collectively a bunch of old cranks who vociferously complain about the slightest change in the way things are done, and a few of the loudest ones are, amusingly, voting keep in this thread. Wikipedia has a lot of untapped potential in the realms of local and social history, and these articles could provide a model for that. There are some things I don’t like: I don’t like twisting G the GNG out of shape, I don’t like how the articles do not provide sufficient historical and social context and parts of them read like a true crime article. But no experiments are perfect, of course. In the end, it comes down to if our rules don’t allow a positive contribution like this without keeping out shitty contributions of the same type, then we need to change our rules, because the encyclopedia comes first, not our exponentially growing mass of policy pages nor the expectations of cranky veterans. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRIMINAL. The subject is definitely not a renowned figure and neither the motivation or execution of the crimes are unusual; the subject committed a string of petty crimes, that's it. If that is the level of notablity needed to have an article on this site then it might as well include everything. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC):[reply]
- @Millionsandbillions: WP:CRIMINAL only applies if a better home can be found for the content: it is really a sort of merge vote, and an argument that the encyclopedia is better served by an item in a list than a separate article. Where would you like to merge the content? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content should not be merged anywhere. This is the first time that I have heard that a notability guideline, in this case WP:CRIMINAL, only applies if a better home can be found for the content. Sorry but Wikipedia is not a repository of all the knowledge in the world and there is a lot of content that is excluded by the notability guidelines. Just because something is verifiable does not mean we need an article on it, see WP:EDITDISC. Other than one self-published book, all sources in the three articles are contemporary news articles and being covered in WP:109PAPERS does not mean the subjects are notable for an encyclopedia. The articles are well-written but that just helps to WP:MASK the lack of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No arguments have overcome her utter lack of notability. The article itself says that she is unnotable. The entire purpose for the book that is the sole source of this article is that she is unnotable, and to describe the life of an unnotable person. That is fine, but that means it fails to fit an encyclopedia with notability rules. Since there is only once real source, this should Redirect to an article on the book itself, which is properly notable, as it has received secondary coverage. — trlkly 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in Wikipedia terms is determined not by subjective personal opinion but by WP:GNG, and many of us in this discussion feel that the coverage in contemporary newspapers and a secondary socurce meet this standard. It's nonsense to suggests "no arguments have overcome" your personal opinion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well many of us think that the article does not meet the GNG criterion, in particular owing to the single self-published secondary account.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR by an anonymous IP may be the least persuasive !vote ever, but here it is. This article does not meet the letter of WP:GNG but it does meet the spirit. The book by Elizabeth Belcham would constitute WP:SIGCOV in a secondary source (multiple sources are generally expected, but not required) if it satisfied one of the exceptions at WP:RSSELF, particularly "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." Belcham, as a professional archivist with over twenty years experience in her field, is an established expert in her field in my opinion and she is not being used to source extraordinary claims -- in fact, the ordinariness of her claims appears to be the problem cited by many proposing deletion. However, I can find no evidence that she has been published in a third party publication, so the wikilawyers will win this one. I submit, however, that her archival experience satisfies the spirit of alternative indicia of expertise and reliability recognized by the policy. Deleting these articles will in no way improve the encyclopedia. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More than one user has used WP:IAR as justification for keeping these articles. It seems to me that editors arguing for inclusion on such a basis are going against the spirit of WP:IAR and are using more of an WP:ILIKEIT rationale. Note that WP:IAR states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Note the improving. If this article is included then it would result in many, many other articles about similarly non-notable people being created. This would not result in an improving of the encyclopedia, but rather in a degrading of the encyclopedia. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment about inclusion of these articles are wrong. When kept these three articles will be beneficial for the project.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it is rather your argument that is more of an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rationale. That slippery slope argument is more of a fallacy, and WP:IAR does apply here - the notability guideline does prevent us from making this encyclopedia better by deleting a well-written article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ does not understand WP:BLUDGEON.--Catlemur (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:BLUDGEON's summary says:

This page in a nutshell:

It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.

The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion, the less effective your words become.

So far BabbaQ's name appears 15 times in this discussion, of which only about 9 seem to be replies disagreeing with other people's arguments (and the number of people disagreed with is about 8 or less). In a discussion as huge as this one, about 9 or less seems nowhere near being a 'reply to every comment in a discussion'. And most of his/her arguments are using different reasons, so 'The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion' also seems inapplicable.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhslobus - Thank you for explaining that to the user. So far I have been accused of bludgeon by two editors that is participating in this thread. One who left a rather biting message at my talk page that I simply ignored. They seem to misunderstand the meaning of the guideline.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of valuable historical insight and context and that it passes GNG given the sources. I find NYB's argument that the article "is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period" valid from a policy pov and persuasive from a 'best for the project' pov. I think that any merge would take from the visceral and thought provoking impact it achieves as currently structured in the stand-alone article. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We're only having this discussion because the subject is dead and female. An article about a currently living male with a similar track record would be laughed off the site. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I promise you I'd be voting Delete in that situation. How about assuming a little good faith? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and I find the "keep" arguments far more persuasive, Newyorkbrad's in particular; Ceoil's comments cut to the heart of the matter as well. It is, in fact, better sourced and more insightful than a boatload of articles about (otherwise less notable) aristocrats and nobles of the same era, for which there wouldn't in a million years have been a deletion disussion. Risker (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing in any of the above has convinced me to change my opinion since the previous AfD; the articles meet the general notability guide. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad, I think he sums it up nicely. Nomader (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 18 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.