Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra Hemmings

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 per consensus and nominators desire to withdraw and possibly relist individually. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Hemmings[edit]

I would like to withdraw this AfD and I will break them apart to have them considered individually. How do I formally request that? Justinm1978 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of several people to sign onto the articles of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete, far below WP:BIO. Being the cofounder of a sorority by itself is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Hemmings is the only one to have an actual assertion of notability, and not enough of it. None of the three movies in which she played are notable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Strong Keep both articles The accomplishments of Myra Davis Hemmings are notable. It should be noted that especially dark skinned African American women were routinely denied opportunities for major roles in movies because of racism doing this timeframe. Even Lena Horne acting parts were cut out of movies when they were shown down south because of racism. Also, Myra Davis Hemmings participated in the 1913 March for Women Suffrage. HistoricDST (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founders of large Greek organizations (large may include but is not limited to international groups, members of a large multi-member council, and those that are generally notable enough to merit a wikipedia article with multiple connected sub-pages (such as list of chapters and list of notable members)) are notable solely for founding that organization, as well as any other notable characteristics ("firsts," "mosts," and "bests", for example). See: Ralph C. Smedley who founded Toastmasters; Sir George Williams who founded the YMCA; Hassan al-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood; E. Urner Goodman and Carroll A. Edson who founded the Order of the Arrow (a Scouting society); Frank Reed Horton who founded the Alpha Phi Omega honor fraternity; and A. B. Graham who founded 4-H. If the organization they founded is notable, then they are notable. Simply provide sources and information enough to create at least a fully-formed stub and the article can stay. —ScouterSig 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I would agree that "the" founder, as in the person who was the originator of the organization, could be considered notable. I disagree with a list of 20 people who were the initial members to be notable. In the articles above, there is hardly any notability cited other than the fact that they were one of the first 20 people to be in the org. I don't find that notable, hence the prod. One was defended with a revert that said "DST Founders play a major role in women suffrage, passage of civil rights act, bailing students out of jail, granting scholarships", but couldn't provide any citation. Since there were thousands of individuals doing this, I don't find this notable either. In the example above about Frank Reed Horton, he was the originating person who provided the genesis for Alpha Phi Omega, but there were 12 other students who signed on as the initial membership. We don't consider all of them notable. So in this case, the person who was the genesis behind the org is notable for the founding, but the other people are not. Justinm1978 (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Bad faith nomination on Justin's part. See the notability guideline. Should have made people separately instead of all of the founders, like he did with Alpha Kappa Alpha's founders as well as Delta Sigma Theta's fouders. Also, Justin's reference to an above comment made by HistoricDST should be disregarded since HistoricDST is a newcomer [1]. Thus, BITE also applies on the part of Justin. He is also thinking about nominating the NPHC founders for deletion, see this and this. However, I think this AFD should be disregarded because 1.) Wikipedia is not censored 2.)ignore all rules applies here. You can Google the people and find that they are notable, and not just a beginning star or anything about that. 3.) I am sorry that Delta Sigma Theta doesn't publish their founders biographies online. 4.) Most importantly: If founders of organizations, such as the NPHC are deleted, then founders of other organizations need to be deleted such as Eagle Scout founders, etc. I personally feel that since Justin is POV pushing for Alpha Phi Omega and making points to delete all other fraternities and sororities founders, such as making CU cases to people who disagree with his viewpoints. Making edits to other articles only restricted to Title XI states that this is a social sorority and not a service sorority[2], [3], some without edit summaries: [4], [5], [6], etc, without the consensus of other editors. By the way, he did not raise objection to the notability of the founders on Alpha Kappa Alpha as well as Delta Sigma Theta's talk pages without the consensus of other editors who are working on the article which in my personal opinion is very rude. After this AfD is close, you will be guaranteed that there will be an arbitration case as a result of this, because this is not fair. I am very angry that administrators as well as editors are allowing this POV-pushing to the point of censoring very important founders who have given back to the African-American community to occur. And, yes, I know that this is an Afd, but if you were in my shoes, and worked very hard to make African-American founding members of an organization and another person's MO is to delete ALL OF THE ARTICLES THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ON WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION, let's see what your reaction is. Miranda 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 22 as a unit decided to found the organization, not just one person. In addition, Wikipedia is not battleground. If Justin wants to fight and wikilawyer, please take it somewhere else, because I and others do not have the time for such utter nonsense. Miranda 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I nom. for deletion Justin's founders under Justin's rationale, see this and this. Both were speedily kept, even though articles did not have references, unlike these articles for deletion. I also think that Justin's decision to delete these articles are race-related, since founders of the top two African-American sororities in the nation are being deleted. Miranda 08:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were kept on "no consensus" and possibly "bad faith nomination." —Scouter Sig 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced and there is enough of a claim to notability for mine.Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
divide, and resubmit the notability of these two people is not equivalent. Miranda is perfectly right in this--they should not have been submitted together. The individual main founder of an organization may be notable, as in ScouterSig's examples, but that doesn't extend to everyone who participated. A group of everyone who joined the initial chapter is an absurd criterion--normally some would have been expected to be leaders in it, and might be notable on that account, as well as any who have had a notable subsequent career. . That the sorority is notable, and the initial founding a notable event, doesn't make everyone present in it notable. individually: proper weight would be to mention their names in the article and then a specialist Wikia could be a suitable external reference. WP is not a substitute for the inadequacies of the sorority web site. But if we are going to deal with these 2 now, then

keep Myra Hemmings, who had a notable subsequent career.

Weak Delete Winona Cargile Alexander, unless more information can be provided. She may indeed have been notable as a pioneering social worker, but there should be some additional material

I respect the work of the editors who have been writing these articles, and I honor the role of this and similar fraternal groups in developing education in a restrictive environment, but it still does not mean that all of the individual people are individually notable. And as for the evident hostility between two groups of editors--they should keep it out of AfD. We are here to discuss the articles. If there are others that might not be notable,we can look at them if they are nominated. DGG (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hemmings founded an important organization. She has at least one building named after her, http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA020506.06B.black_history_exhibit.2ff935b.html; her papers are archived at a university library, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utsa/00073/00073-P.html (which calls her "notable"). If her life is deemed worth studying by a major research university, I should think she's good enough for Wikipedia.Wikidemo (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have followed some of the sources, and reread the article. I am trying to understand if this person was the sole founder (I am thinking no), the leading founder (perhaps?), or one of twenty "co-founders". If it is one of the first two, I am more inclined to think there may be notability, but not if the last one. The problem I am having is a lack of clarity on this issue, which is not cleared up in any of the references I went back and read. Further, there was only one neutral source in the reference section, and it did not seem to have any information to confirm notability. Coming from a science background, I must also say that just because a university, even a large one, is a repository for papers does not establish individual notability. Many minor scientists bequeath their papers to the university that they work at, but would not pass notability here. She seems to have been an exceptional person, but her work does not seem to fit, based on how I am reading it, the qualifications for notability here.LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources - see short bio in Black Texas Women. Addhoc (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above — Save_Us_229 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obvious, lots of notability. Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hemmings as meeting WP:BIO. No opinion about Alexander. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable Knicksfan4ever (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fits WP:BIO criteria. Acidskater (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myra Hemmings - There are reliable third-party references in the article, including one to a biographical encyclopedia on African American Texan women. If Wikipedia is to have credibility as an encyclopedia then these are the sorts of biographical articles that need to be kept. --Lquilter (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (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.