Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine J. Coates

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine J. Coates[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)

Prod by another editor was disputed. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; mentioned in the Baltimore Sun, other than that, just write-ups in University of Maryland publications (article was created by a properly self-disclosed paid graduate assistant at the University of Maryland). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm the one that deprodded. Although the coverage is mostly from the university, it's sustained (starting in 1992) and in depth: it includes an honorary doctorate and oral history interview. And I'm inclined to think that first African American student at a southern university meets WP:ANYBIO C2. Comment that the Washington Post has coverage similar to the Baltimore Sun's [1], perhaps in slightly more depth. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh, currently neutral on this one. I don't think that being the first African-American woman to graduate from a given university is a strong enough claim of notability to override a lack of substantial independent sourcing, although the fact that she has an award named after her and recently earned an honorary degree shows that there's a bit more notability than "first X to do Y". And we do tend to be lenient on independent sourcing for academics, but IMO her claim to notability is more of a historical one than an academic one, i.e. one based on her research or academic positions. The mentions in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post articles are just mentions, IMO, and not SIGCOV - I've added another reference from the Baltimore Sun which I think is SIGCOV, but it's still just one reference... If someone can find another decent independent source I would probably be persuaded to vote keep. Spicy (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is also profiled in brief (with picture) in a coffee table book [2]. There's another book on the history of UMD [3] that might say something more about her, but I can't easily get it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't see significant coverage, and am the one who did the original PROD. Other than being the first African American woman to graduate from a particular college (is she the first African American or just the first African American woman, she may be DUE on the college's article), I don't see any claim to notability. Did she enroll in the same year as the other African Americans, or the other ones allowed on campus? If so, then if there's coverage of that, an article on the group could exist and this be merged into it. It's also a question of sustained coverage. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- [4] states "By the time Elaine Johnson was ready to graduate, she was one of two black students, and the first woman.". Spicy (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jerodlycett. He's right in suggesting a combined article on the group and merging this into it, but until then I don't see notability either. — Czello 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my comments above. I don't think the mention in the coffee table book is SIGCOV, and I haven't been able to find any other independent sources with significant coverage of her. (The journal article recently added to the page does not mention her). I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning her on the UMD page and redirecting there, but I'm not sure it's WP:DUE. Spicy (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfect example of how subjective AfD discussions actually are: we like to pretend that they are based on objective measures of significant coverage in reliable sources, but when a topic comes along that by any objective standard does have significant coverage in reliable sources, but where we don't think the subject should be notable because she's just another black woman who had to struggle against discrimination, we get comments like the ones above saying that the coverage is somehow not significant. Hints for discussants: A newspaper article in the Baltimore Sun primarily about the subject is significant coverage, according to the clear wording of WP:SIGCOV which says nothing about the coverage describing notable accomplishments. An article in the alumni magazine primarily about her, and a recorded oral history interview of the subject, are also significant coverage, by the same wording. So is a full half page about her in a published book. These are, in fact, a lot more wide in their scope and in-depth in their coverage than the typical coverage of an athlete's performance in a single professional game, something that we pretend is indeed SIGCOV because we think the articles on those athletes are worthy of being kept. If you think the notability standards we use should be based on accomplishments rather than coverage, then push to make that change to our guidelines. But, even if you fail to see it as an accomplishment to succeed in being the first black graduate in spite of so much adversity, don't pretend that the coverage is at the level that you expect it to be based on what you think of the subject's accomplishments rather than the level that it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV as explained by Woodroofe and Eppstein. TJMSmith (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage. Additionally, she's got the honorary degree that counts towards WP:NPROF, though she's more well known for trailblazing than professor work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV that makes clear why it was a notable (and noted) accomplishment for her to stick it out and graduate. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, DiamondRemley39 et al. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF#C2, and David Eppstein's brilliant explanation of WP:SIGCOV on Wiki's notability. Earthianyogi (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2020 (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.