Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelia Chase Brant

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 06:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Chase Brant[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable homeopath PepperBeast (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bare bio gives no indications of notability: a female homeopathic doctor was not in itself so unusual at that time. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current stub is just a start. There are plenty more sources out there including History of homeopathy and its institutions in America; Women Doctors of the World; Women of Today; Dream within her hand – Life of Dr. Cornelia Chase Brant; A Vital Force: Women in American Homeopathy; &c. WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD therefore apply "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability shown per NACADEMICS 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." She was dean (that is, the head) of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women 1914-1918 at a time when no other medical facilities allowed women to intern, per Sylvain Cazalet "History of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women". HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that deans of medical schools are automatically notable and are exempt from needing significant coverage. Besides the NYMCHW not exactly being a major academic institution, the president would be the highest position, not dean. "Dream within her hand" is written by her children and is not independent. Andrew is lying to us when he says his Google Books hits are are useful sources, when in fact History of homeopathy and its institutions in America merely lists her as one of scores of graduates over the decades of the NYMNHW, Women of Today merely lists her as president of "Institute Fraternity, Medical Women of the American Institute of Homeopathy", and Women Doctors of the World merely mentions she wrote about the College in a footnote; A Vital Force is also just a passing mention. Andrew is perfectly capable of providing links, but when he doesn't, there's often no relevant significant coverage to be found. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange personal attack because Reywas92 confirms that the subject does indeed appear in the sources that I listed. Of course, the sources vary in their usefulness but, for example, Women Doctors of the World confirms that the subject was dean of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women. And, of course, these sources are not exhaustive as there seems to be plenty more out there. For example, here's an interesting report which is worth linking because it is fully accessible. Note that it describes the subject as "Head of Women's Medical College" so she passes WP:NACADEMIC, as stated by HouseOfChange. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. It has never been held that any dean of a medical college is automatically notable and exempt from needing any significant coverage. The fact that a name "appears" in a source is completely irrelevant to its suitability for establishing notability and you deliberately obfuscate the discussion with such useless titles. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: So far, GNG has not been established. Has NACADEMICS 6? That is a two-part question. 1) Did Brant hold "a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post" at New York Medical College and Hospital for Women? Clearly per RS she did, being called interchangeably dean and head in various sources. (The head of the 19th c Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania also has the title "dean" and every woman who held that post has an article.) 2) Was NYMCHW at that time "a major academic institution"? As one of only two medical schools to train women at that time, it clearly played a significant role in 19th century American medicine. Another indication of contemporary opinion is Andrew Davidson's latest citation, where Brant is one of two women physicians interviewed on a controversial issue. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and every woman who held that post has an article" And??? Every woman who held that post also has significant coverage in several sources such as their own substantive entries in Notable American Women, Women in the Biological Sciences, and The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science. I know you're better than that junk argument. The list of NYMCWC graduates suggests that there weren't more than about 50 students there at one time – that would not be "a major academic institution" as implied by NACADEMIC, at least not to the point at which we can say, nah, screw significant coverage! Whatever the school's role, her role is apparently not important enough to get anything here or in other substantive content about her. Columbia says the school was closed in 1918 "by its president and board of trustees", so in that case she would not hold the highest-level post as dean. Reywas92^Talk 06:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I am not convinced she meets C6 -- the institution she was dean of apparently isn't notable enough for an article, and it is not clear that dean is the highest position anyway (that would be the parent university's president in most schools). There were many medical schools training women by 1904, and certainly by 1914, so the assertion that it was one of only two schools to train women is surely a miscomprehension of the newspaper article linked above (which says the hospital is one of only two to treat women exclusively). I also could not validate that "[at this time] no other medical facilities allowed women to intern", but regardless the source for that claim is allegedly Cornelia Brant herself according to a user-generated/self-published article on rootsweb (the same unreliable source in the article) which was then rehosted on the homeopathy SPS cited above (Sylvain Cazalet). That same article also makes a distinction between the president and dean of the school. The only RS discussing her is therefore the piece in the newspaper, which is not usable for claims of notability due to it being an interview. I am certainly open to reconsidering if actual SIGCOV or more compelling evidence of C6 is provided. JoelleJay (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, preference is still strongly for a redirect to the biography instead. But one of the sources found by SusunW does appear to be SIGCOV and combined with the NYT obit probably elevates her to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1. WP:NPROF is typically not so useful for assessing notability of someone who worked in the first half of the 20th century. That probably leaves GNG; note that sources are harder to find on someone active in the pre-internet age. 2. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on the book (biography) by her daughter, which appears to be possibly notable: there's a review in Kirkus [1], and a short summary in this book [2], which I take as being of roughly similar weight to a review. Given the difficulty of finding sources for a book published in 1940, I think this might be enough for WP:NBOOK. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Russ Woodroofe, yes this is a sensible solution; we could also use the content to expand the existing section of NYMC on the Women's College. I agree that NPROF is really not applicable to pre-~1970s academics and notability should revert to GNG; it would be helpful if this distinction was somewhere in the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Cornelia C. Brant, 95, Dies; Pioneer Woman Physician". New York Herald Tribune. 1959-03-10. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The obituary notes: "Dr. Brant was one of the first three women appointed to the staff of a New York City public hospital. This was in 1916 when the late Charities Commissioner John Kingsbury appointed them to the medical staff of the Cumberland Street Hospital in Brooklyn. She was also dean of the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women, since consolidated with the Flower-Fifth Avenue Hospital. During World War I she organized a woman's base hospital unit for service overseas."
2. "Cornelia Brant, A Physician, Dies. General Practioner, 95, Had Served in Brooklyn—Led Medical College Here". The New York Times. 1959-03-10. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The obituary notes: "Dr. Brant did not enter the medical school until she was 36 years old, when she was married and had three children of school age. Despite these formidable drawbacks, she graduated at the head of her class. After leaving the college she spent three years studying electro-therapeutic medicine, then a new branch of the physician's art, before entering general practice."
3. "The Quaker Girl Who Dreamed of Becoming a Doctor". The New York Times. 1940-04-28. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via ProQuest.
  The article reviews Dream Within Her Hand the Life of Dr. Cornelia Chase Brant. The article notes: "It is the story of a singularly winning young girl, brought up ina liberal Quaker household, who had an odd dream of becoming a doctor, and who determinedly went back to that dream as middle-age was approaching, when the eldest of her three children was 12 and the youngest nearly 7."
4. Book reviews:
  1. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". The Saturday Review of Literature. Vol. 22. 1940-05-11. p. 20.
  2. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". Booklist. Vol. 36. 1940-05-01. p. 343.
  3. "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". New York Herald Tribune. 1940-04-28.
    The review notes: "The best part of the book describes [the] Newark life. When the authors come nearer to the present they encounter the difficulties of all those who write biographies of living friends. They never really come to grips with Dr. Brant's medical career, beyond recording some of its triumphs. . . But if the authors are sketchy in their handling of their 'heroine's' professional career, they never forget their main theme, the maintenance of the delicate equilibrium of a happy married life, and although they err on the side of sentimentality, they have various interesting things to say about this difficult and rewarding art."
  4. Dowd, William A. (1940-07-13). "Dream within her hand: the life of Dr Cornelia Chase Brant (Book Review)". America.
  5. Worthy, Pauline (1940-06-16). "Pioneer Woman Doctor". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Newspapers.com.
  6. Ross, Lillian (1940-04-27). "Dr. Brant Biography Life of Doctor-Mother. Brooklyn Woman Raises Children, Treats Patients in 'Dream Within Her Hand'". Brooklyn Eagle. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Newspapers.com.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cornelia Chase Brant to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The links you provide are the same obituary published in two different newspapers (with slight modifications) of uncertain independence, and reviews of the biography. These do not demonstrate notability of her, but of the book (otherwise we would have articles on every single book character). Per Russ Woodroofe I would support an article on the book, which would probably permit more coverage of her on Wikipedia than a standalone article on her since the material in the book, not being independent of the subject, would be less DUE in the latter case. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JoelleJay: The New York Times obituary and the New York Herald obituary are not "the same" except in recounting the same remarkable features of the same life. They are two independent RS expressing an opinion that the person who just died was notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfChange, they have identical structure and almost zero differences in actual content:

NYT v NYHT obits

Both:

Physician who practiced in Brooklyn until 20 years ago
Died today at her home at 17 Hamilton Ave.
Was 95.
Wife of Henry L Brant, a lawyer.
NYT: Received MD from NYMC and Hospital for Women in 1903.
One of three women appointed to staff of Cumberland Street Hospital in Brooklyn, in 1916. NYHT: [additionally mentions "Charities Commissioner John Kingsbury appointed them"]
Dean of NYMC and Hospital for Women, which was later consolidated with Flower and Fifth Avenue Hospitals.
"In World War I she organized a women's base hospital unit for service [NYT: in France] [NYHT: overseas]."

Slight prose differences:

NYT: "Dr. Brant did not enter the medical school until she was 36 years old, when she was married and had three children of school age. Despite these formidable drawbacks, she graduated at the head of her class." NYHT: "Confronted in her youth with the choice between medicine and matrimony, she chose matrimony, and it was not until she was thirty-six and the mother of three school-age children that she applied herself finally to the study of medicine. Despite family distractions, she was graduated in 1904 at the head of her class."

NYT: "After leaving the college she spent three years studying electro-therapeutic medicine, then a new branch of the physician's art, before entering general practice." NYHT: "She devoted another three years to studies in the then comparatively new field of electric therapy, which became her specialty."

NYT: "In 1940 the book "Dream Within Her Hand," a biography of Dr. Brant written by a daughter, Mrs. A. Glentworth Birdsall, in collaboration with Alice Ross Colver, was published. It told of Dr. Brant's success in combining home life with a career." NYHT: "In 1940 her daughter, Mrs. Helen Brant Birdsall, collaborated with Alice Ross Colver in writing "Dream Within Her Hand," a biography of the physician, which stressed her success in combining home life with a career."

NYT: [additionally mentions: "Dr. Brant was formerly active in Brooklyn women's club life and had served as president of the Brooklyn Woman's Club."]

NYT: "Mrs. Birdsall and another daughter, Mrs. Hazel Babcock, survive Mrs. Brant, who also leaves seven grandchildren and sixteen great-grandchildren." NYHT: "Surviving, besides Mrs. Birdsall, is another daughter, Mrs. Hazel Brant Babcock; seven grandchildren, and sixteen great-grandchildren."

One of these is very clearly a derivative of the other, and therefore should not be considered independent. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This analysis actually demonstrates that the obituaries were done separately because they each contain a fact which does not appear in the other. Note also the timing – the obituaries were both published on the day after the subject's death and so there was limited opportunity for copying as there was no Internet, search engines or cut/paste computing in those days. In those days, such newspapers maintained their own libraries of cuttings which would naturally tend to contain similar material. "Until the mid-1990s, almost every media organisation – from the smallest local newspaper to national TV stations – maintained a cuttings collection. These libraries consisted of scrappy folders full of articles, arranged in a bewildering classification system. Only the librarian knew how it worked. Whether it was a simple fact-check, background information for an interview or just searching for story ideas, the journalist would put in a request and hope to walk away with a bulging file." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, unless all the info was contained in one or two cuttings held by both newspapers, the probability of these two obituaries arising by chance is exceptionally low. Most likely there was a press release of some sort that the newspapers just closely paraphrased. JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probability doesn't come into it – if the obituaries had been very different then JoelleJay would be complaining about that too. Such guesswork is just bias and it's irrelevant for notability for which the key point is that both organs decided that the subject was worth covering. Anyway, I'm going to watch Obit which might provide more insight... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- if the obituaries had been very different then JoelleJay would be complaining about that too. What a bizarre example of ABF. I'd also like to know what prior cuttings contained the information on her death that both newspapers managed to include almost verbatim and in the same order... In particular, they both use the biography by her daughter (ending with the phrase "success in combining home life with a career") to segue into listing her other daughter and descendants. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources listed by Cunard would indicate that WP:GNG are met. Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Cunard. Further, the subject appears to be of importance to women's history within medicine in the United States. The New York Times description of her as a "pioneer" should be a clue to her importance within the field of women's studies.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dean of only one of a few medical schools that allowed women to enroll or intern is quite a historical significance. That can not be argued. The obituaries provided are okay for biographical information about the subject. They are both independent and reliable. The books are not independent but are secondary and would provide additional biographical information. Sometimes we have to look at the overall totality of the significance of a subjects life and accomplishments, especially when dealing with those pre-1970's. Applying common sense to what we do know about her (she was called a "pioneer" by the NYT) allows me to see how she is notable and should be included. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ARoseWolf, just a minor note, but she was dean of one of the few medical schools that were exclusively for women; there were many, many medical schools accepting women by that time. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please provide your sources to back up the claim of exactly how many is many colleges that gave women medical degrees at the time of her career please and thank you. --ARoseWolf 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - ARoseWolf and JoelleJay This article provides a general overview of the status of women in medicine at that time. Yes there were many institutions training women, but simultaneously there were many more institutions denying women admittance; particularly in the Eastern part of the United States. The West Coast was much more progressive about training women than the East. New York was not a friendly state for women in medicine, so Brant and her college were important.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am very aware of the difficulties that women had of obtaining a medical degree in the era of time she lived in and before. I've written articles on Indigenous women who sought medical degrees to help their people on the respective reservations. In the late 1880's to early 1900's only a handful of institutions offered women a medical degree. Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was only the second institution in the world to offer women a M.D. degree around the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries. Offering some training and actually offering a medical degree are two different things entirely. At the time of Cornelia it was still a relatively new thing for women to become certified doctors. While Cornelia was not a doctor she did earn a medical degree, was a general practitioner and became the head of an institution that offered medical degrees and training to women at a time when this was still a rather new notion. Her career spanned a time in which women gained the right to vote, among other rights only afforded to their spouses prior to. --ARose Wolf 13:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I take it you didn't actually read the article, as your statements don't match the detailed historical record in the article. You aren't doing yourself any favors towards establishing credibility of your statements by ignoring evidence that contradicts what you are claiming. Regardless, you and I are both in agreement that this article should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You would be wrong, I have read the article, in depth. I don't appreciate your attack on my competency or the assertion that I would comment or give my opinion on the notability of a specific article without reading it and being familiar with it. You haven't provided any evidence on what constitutes "many more institutions" in your statement. I invite you to prove that anything I said is not factual. She did earn a medical degree, she was a general practitioner and she was the head of an institution that offered medical degrees to women at a time when, as you pointed out, New York was not a friendly state for women in medicine. She also did have a career that spanned from the late 1800's to the early to mid 1900's. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. To find the statement and source for the Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania you can look at the article on Isabel Cobb. I'm not asking for an apology for your assumption of bad faith on my part by stating that I have made false claims and ignored evidence that contradicted anything I have said. There has been no evidence provided that directly contradicted anything I said. I believe it is imperative that anyone commenting on an AfD become knowledgeable with the content of the article in which they are suggesting a course of action on. I did my due diligence in this case and now I am walking away. Please consult WP:AGF on the how an editor should approach other editors when interacting with them. --ARose Wolf 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Sigh. I think you need to calm down. I think you may have missed this [This URL linked article in my post above; which is what I was referring to. Not the article on Cornelia Chase Brant. It's a little hard to believe you read it when your statements contradict the evidence before our eyes. The article is pretty clear about the rise of co-educational medical schools at state universities in the 1880s and 1890s in the the United States, and the proliferation of women's medical schools as well in this time period. I agree with you the New York was not a friendly state towards women. I said the exact same thing earlier in this conversation. However, I disagree with the factual accuracy of the following statements you made: 1."Late 1880's to early 1900's only a handful of institutions offered women a medical degree." (not true based on evidence in the article; a significant percentage of schools were including women including state universities which were becoming co-ed in that time period) 2. "Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was only the second institution in the world to offer women a M.D. degree around the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries." (not true; that school began conferring degrees in the 1850s (see Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania); and the article shows an exponential increase in women's medical schools and co-educational state medical schools in the succeeding decades of the latter half the 19th century). 3. "At the time of Cornelia it was still a relatively new thing for women to become certified doctors." (Sort of true. She was 50 years after the first women doctors, and the article states "The number of women doctors increased substantially between 1870 and 1900, from about 500 to about 7,000." " Four percent of all medical graduates in 1905 were women, but women constituted only 2.6% of medical graduates in 1915.") Having graduated in 1903 she was after these thousands of other women, and among the hundreds if not thousands of women who graduated with medical degrees in 1903. Flexner reports that 28,000 medical degrees were conferred in 1904, so assuming the number remained constant a year earlier and 4% was likely similar, that would mean approximately 1,120 women were awarded a medical degree in the United States the year she graduated. Still an impressive achievement for the time, but not exceptionally rare event.)4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - ARoseWolf, my comment was to rebut your statement that there were only a few medical schools allowing women to enroll or intern. I am not (and was never) challenging that her position was still tremendously important, although until recently we didn't have the in-depth reliable sources to support a standalone article on her.
      To answer your question: by 1904 61% (97/160) of US medical schools accepted women. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pre-internet subject, i.e. information is not likely to be digitized. This review in the Ohio State Medical Journal of her biography indicates she was a pioneering woman x-ray specialist. That she was indeed involved in such work is confirmed here, and here, here. While the biography was written by family, this review indicates it has a bibliography of secondary sources included. (I have no access to a library, but someone who does could easily verify that). Newspapers.com confirms there are 3,081 articles about "Cornelia Chase Brant" between 1908 and 1959; 1,195 for "Cornelia C. Brant" during the same period; 4,374 for "Dr. Cornelia Brant" over that period. Clearly we have sufficient evidence over time of her having been noted for both her club work and as a physician. For example [3], [4],[5] are all significant articles; whereas this (mentions that she was founder of a prominent social club) and this (confirms she was also a speaker and president of another social club) are less detailed. Bottom line we meet WP:Basic and probably weakly GNG. SusunW (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SusunW, I appreciate your digging up sources -- the profile you link in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle might be enough alongside the obituary to meet GNG. However I do not think the description of the court case she was in, and definitely not the Des Moines Register clipping, are SIGCOV of her. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, as we have discussed before multiple sources giving different information can be combined to achieve significant coverage. If I had time, I could on the basis of my search in newspapers.com prove that her club involvement alone meets sigcov. (Though she is of far more import for posterity because of her medical stature.) However, more coverage for this AfD is unnecessary. We have sufficient sources verified to show adequate independent sources to write a detailed biography. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, I interpreted your comment For example [3], [4],[5] are all significant articles as claiming each of those articles alone was SIGCOV; sorry if I was mistaken. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, you are correct that I worded it poorly. I was in a rush to finish an article I have been working on for several days, which I didn't manage. Maybe tomorrow. Sorry for that, but no matter how poorly I wrote that, you can see that there are multiple sources giving different information about her that add up to sigcov. SusunW (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and the sources listed by Cunard. Also a plausible case for WP:PROF#C6 as head of a standalone medical school (the existence of a board and a president of the board does not change this; C6 applies to, in business terms, the CEO, not the board of directors). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. I believe that the obituaries suffices to meet WP:BASIC. I think that they are sufficiently independent of one another -- after all, there are only so many things you can say in an obit. As they looks in part to be local news (albeit in large metropolitan area), I don't think the case here is so strong, but I think it's enough to pass the bar, especially on a historical figure like this. Other sources: The biography is not independent (as co-authored by the subject's daughter), but is WP:SIGCOV and may be used with caution to fill in details. The remaining sources listed by Cunard comprise reviews of the book (unless I'm missing something). I don't believe in the WP:NPROF C6 case, but one notability criterion is enough. I do think that there is a substantial case to merge this article into an article on the biography (which has a much clearer pass of our notability criteria with its many reviews), but as this article is much improved over when it was nominated for deletion, I don't think that is so clear cut as it was earlier. The homeopathy aspects may require watchlisting for WP:FRINGE editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Russ Woodroofe neither national nor large metropolitan news is "better" than local news. Circulation (quantity) has little to do with editorial excellence (quality). Pre-internet sources must be judged with different eyes than post-internet sources, when it became much easier to distribute information. Local newspapers are likely to be the few sources at the time that would have covered women or ethnic news, as academics did not broadly study these groups until after the 1970s. Major metropolitan newspapers focused on broad topics and often limited the coverage they gave to these groups or relegated them to fluff pages. Thus, to find the type of information one needs to develop sigcov, local newspapers, those affiliated with specific newswire services (such as the Associated Negro Press, La Prensa, etc.), often are the only sources to cover the accomplishments and issues faced by under-represented groups. They were instrumental the development of agency for socially constrained groups by "providing leadership, solidifying the community, and furthering its cultural survival".p 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

I'm upgrading my !vote to Keep. I still think the obits provide only a fairly weak pass. On further consideration, however, I've become convinced that certain of the book reviews constitute WP:SIGCOV of the subject here (and not only of the book). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Basic and G-Notability: multiple positions held, multiple pioneering feats attained, sig-coverage in newspapers, obits from at least two competing newspapers, other data as shown above and in her article by recently added RS. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:PROF#C6, thanks to the excellent sources listed above supplied by Cunard, SusunW and others. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources listed in the conversation above. /Julle (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Yupik (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm amazed this afd was not withdrawn as soon as the NYT obit was found; I'm especially amazed that there continued to be objections to considering it as a sufficient source, and requests for additional sources. One of the firmest pillars of notability for biographies, is that a full editorial NYT obit is sufficient by itself to show notability -- at least for the 20th and 21st century. I cannot remember a decision in the 14+ years I have been here that went otherwise, except possible for minor society figures without an actual career. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (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.