Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Bryan Moore

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 only thing that's clear here is that people disagree on whether this meets WP:NPOL, or if it even applies to this position, or if the LCfWiGaB Hall of Fame is a "significant award or honor". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bryan Moore

[edit]

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

Ellen Bryan Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Technically a state-level elected official, but a quite minor one, and not really covered by our practices with respect to DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Register of State Lands" is a bureaucratic role, not an WP:NPOL-passing legislative office, so the notability test she would have to pass would require much more evidence of reliable source coverage than this. Three of the five footnotes are primary sources, not reliable or notability-making media coverage, and the two which are media (but are incompletely cited for the purposes of being able to locate them for proper verification, as they both lack the titles of the articles) appear, based on what they're actually being used to footnote, to just be routine verification of raw election results rather than coverage about Moore. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes this article had been deleted at PCP because it was created by the serial copyvioer User:Billy Hathorn (who also made dozens if not hundreds of nn articles, many of which I've sent to AFD). But he did make hundreds of legit notable articles, even if they must be deleted at PCP, and this one is it. And as for the "bureaucratic role" part, that is not true. While "Register of State Lands" is currently bureaucratic, it was still an elected office when the subject held it. Of course, if anyone has more adequate access to reliable sourcing to prove the fact that she held an elected office that was an elected office when she held it but is no longer an elected office (given that she held the elected office during a time where the internet did not exist), I would be glad. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the office happened to be elected is not an exemption from having to consider the nature of what the job entailed — the job duties were administrative, not legislative, in nature, so it's not an office that consitutes an automatic free pass over NPOL just because there was an election involved. There are lots of elected offices that we don't just uncritically accept as "inherent" notability freebies just because they were technically elected offices (e.g. city and county councils), and lots of offices that we do accept as notable even though people are appointed and not elected to them (e.g. the Canadian Senate and the British House of Lords) — we take into account the nature and scope of the work a person does in the role and the amount of coverage they get for it, not just the trivial details of how they got the job. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[W]e take into account the nature and scope of the work a person does in the role and the amount of coverage they get for it: Based on the vast majority of coverage found in a WP:BEFORE in some of the parish libraries hosted by Advantage Preservation, it seems the scope of Land Registrar involves the approval of financial exchange of land and having the associated notices posted on newspapers across the state of Louisiana. Hundreds (if not thousands) of these notices seem to have been published while she held the office. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point: she has to be the subject of media coverage, not the creator of newspaper advertisements, to clear our notability standards. What you're describing is administrative, not political, work. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #1 is talking about governors and cabinet officials and legislators, not purely administrative jobs. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can read into anything in the language of NPOL that it only means governors and other specified positions. The guidance at WP:POLOUTCOMES does not specify that either. I also am not sure how "administrative" the position was when the subject was in office. --Enos733 (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Trying to do some archive and news searches but I can't find much coverage of her or her campaigns. While statewide elected positions often pass NPOL, Louisiana had 11 at that time and no state even has that many now and this is not a coverage-receiving role. Though, I laugh at the idea that a local hall of fame for a specialized topic is a "well-known and significant award"; most inductees to that are not notable and she does NOT pass Anybio1. Reywas92Talk 19:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, I couldn't care less if it's statewide rather than local, you're absolutely nuts if you think this is "well-known and significant" even within Louisiana; it's a nice way to honor people but certainly neither of those for our purposes. "Members of the executive department" is not the same list as elected officials, which Political party strength in Louisiana has as eleven until 1974. I don't think this is a notable position (don't even have an article for those below AG, or most of the officeholders) but that's fine if it's kept, still being statewide. Reywas92Talk 03:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the keep !voters have discussed things based on WP:SNG-based guidelines, but the sourcing of the article is absolutely terrible. We have her tombstone, an archived biography of her from the state of Louisiana, an oral history/interview, two alleged newspaper articles from a town of 10,000 people, and a website showing she got an award which just lists her name without any biographical information there at all. The only two sources here which potentially pass WP:GNG are sourced as routine election coverage. This article badly fails WP:GNG, and we should not be looking to keep it on a technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". You don't have to meet the GNG if you meet any of the subject-specific guidelines. Dream Focus 13:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once a subject clears GNG or a SNG, the current state of the sourcing or content of the article does not change whether the subject is notable or not (see WP:NEXIST) and there is not a prohibition on using interviews or other primary sources (or information which is off-line) WP:PSTS. --Enos733 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there's a bit wrong here: the SNGs are designed to make it clear what will meet WP:GNG. They create presumptions something will pass WP:GNG. If a subject meets a WP:SNG (which it doesn't here either, but that's beside my point) but is shown to definitively fail WP:GNG, we can't keep it. And I'm not concerned there's an interview in the article, but you can't use an interview to show notability. If I gave 20 interviews about my own life, I wouldn't become Wikipedia-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer is correct; people are not exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because the page asserts that they pass an SNG. For one thing, sometimes people make false claims to passing SNGs that they don't really pass: we have seen articles created about writers and musicians making award-based or sales-based notability claims that were actually PR lies (charting hits or bestselling books that weren't; whitewashing the major distinction between "submitted to the award committee for consideration" and "actually shortlisted by the award committee as a nominee" so that they can claim to have award nominations; etc.), and we have seen hoax articles created about political officeholders who never actually existed at all. And for another, even if the notability claim is the truth, we still have to be able to properly verify everything else the article says about the person too. So appearing to have attained technical passage of an SNG does not exempt a person from having to have any reliable source media coverage for the purposes of fulfilling GNG; the SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a notability claim if the article is supported by reliable sources, and does not exempt a person from having to have any media coverage just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I solidly disagree. First, there is no question in this case that the subject served as Register of State Lands, an elected, state-wide position in the State of Louisiana. We have verifiable, independent sourcing for this statement (including from the State of Louisiana itself). The other claims in the article do not need (although it is nice) to be secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for descriptive claims WP:PRIMARY and all the claims in the article are found in the sources provided. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
And what we don't have is reliable or independent sourcing to verify that "Register of State Lands" is a noteworthy or significant role in the first place. We're able to verify lots of things about lots of people that don't translate into exemptions from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage; as I've often had to point out in AFD discussions, even an actual president of an entire country would not qualify for an article if he somehow managed to hold the role without having any reliable source coverage in media, such that we had to rely entirely on his own self-published content about himself to have any sources at all. It's not the fact of having a job that gets a person into Wikipedia; it's the volume and depth and range of reliable source coverage in media that they received for having that job. Even "inherently" notable political roles (which Register of State Lands is not) still require media coverage — the "inherence", in fact, is precisely because of the depth and range of media coverage that exists, and is never an exemption from actually having to have any media coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of academics, SNGs not overriding GNG is solidly established policy. See: [[1]] SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's only for the sports guideline. The WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, meet one or the other not both. Dream Focus 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's all guidelines. There is never any such thing as any SNG that confers an exemption from having to have reliable source coverage just because the article says something that some people apparently seem to think sounds notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bearcat on this point - all claims must be verified. However, my larger point is once a subject is presumed notable (by passing a SNG through verification of the claim to notability), it is acceptable to turn to a variety of sourcing (including primary sources) to "support the content in the article" WP:BASIC. Volume and depth of independent, RS material is nice, but not necessary. --Enos733 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting discussion but Ellen Bryan Moore is statewide elected official. Notability has been established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just started looking for sources now. Her obituary (from Associated Press, published in The Times, Shreveport and other papers), has a lot more info about her, including her father's name and occupation and where she was born, her education, what she was responsible for as registrar of state lands (management of state property, management of state parks, collection of oil and gas revenues - and she worked to improve the Louisiana state park system, including the purchase and preservation of a Civil War battle site and lobbying the governor for guidelines on salvaging 400 year old Spanish ships that sank off the coast of Louisiana ([2]. An article in the same paper two years later called 'Women making strides in political arena' has a list of 8 women who had held statewide elected office in Louisiana, including Moore [3]. It certainly seems that she meets WP:NPOL, which does not exclude bureaucratic office. There is probably other coverage, but sifting the 4,432 results on Newspapers.com for "Ellen Bryan Moore" for articles about her rather than notices published by her will take some time. (Though I have found coverage which gives her husband's name and the fact that she had two daughters.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellen_Bryan_Moore&oldid=916092484"