Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Henson Ernst

:{{la|Alice Henson Ernst}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_Henson_Ernst Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Alice Henson Ernst}})

Fails author notability standards. No major reviews of her work nor any indication from the article or from a source search that her work has had an impact in her field. Please note the extended rationale I have given in reply to the first !vote. DrStrauss talk 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as it's questionable whether WP:BEFORE was made here especially in considerations to non-online sources of which will clearly be the case given the subject is from over a century ago. Like with past cases, there's near always something non-online and that itself is enough to take into account here, regardless of whether it's easily accessible. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:*Reply: {{u|SwisterTwister}}, citation needed. Your argument boils down to mere speculation. DrStrauss talk 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:::To begin with, there's a considerably large number of library collections at WorldCat which shows significance towards WP:AUTHOR, and the fact the other sources similarly show information that wouldn't be as easily accessible, including archives, therefore is covered by WP:BEFORE. WP:Mustbesources is only when there would've been absolutely zero sources, which isn't the case here. For example, an [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Alice+Henson+Ernst easy search] here proves this in the fact several sources are from the last century. WP:Bias specifically exists in these cases where we shouldn't quickly judge, and this too is covered by WP:BEFORE. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:::*Reply: {{u|SwisterTwister}}, I checked WorldCat ([https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Alice+Henson+Ernst link]) and there is little that satisfies the four points of WP:NAUTHOR.

::::#{{tq|widely cited by peers or successors}} - the WorldCat and Google Books searches show nothing other than either her own books or any significant coverage.

::::#{{tq|originating a significant new concept}} - little indication that she has done this either because that comes through third-party sources, few of which are available both in the online and offline varieties.

::::#{{tq|work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work}} - again, nothing but self-published sources or passing mentions.

::::#{{tq|significant monument}} - fails this too, no significant attention from museums or galleries.

::::I have noticed that on many of the AfDs you comment on prefer to criticise the nominator for not doing source checks instead of coming up with sources to the contrary. I have provided evidence as to why she is not notable through the lack of independent sources on WorldCat. Please cite sources to the contrary. DrStrauss talk 18:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::I want to note that one of the examples of non-online sources is [https://www.google.com/search?q=Alice%20Henson%20Ernst%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers this], [https://www.google.com/search?q=Alice%20Henson%20Ernst%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers this] and [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/16660374/ this], which I easily found; because the first is from 1939, it's fairly certain there was going to be others; there needs to be an allowance to find such sources like this, which can only happen if it's not nominated for deletion. Also, please don't ping as I'm watching the page as it is. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::*Reply: the first two links are duplicates of each other. Literally, the same searches. It's less than a third of a standard thin newspaper column and gives no real insight into the impact the work has had on her field, I think claiming it's a review is stretching it. And it's the same story with the other source you cited: less than a third of a column in a local publication which is really akin to a passing mention. The {{tq|fairly certain there was going to be others}} bit of your comment is therefore redundant. You've come up with what are essentially a couple of trivial mentions. I ask you again, please cite independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to Ernst to show her notability. Thus far you have failed to do this. And please do ping me because I'm not watching the discussion. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I've added 28 or so sources to the article that either review her work or describe her life. I also expanded it significantly. She was very well-known in the earlier part of the 20th century. Passes GNG and CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:*Reply: well it does now but it certainly didn't when I nominated it. I am clueless as to where you managed to find those sources as my extensive searches in both Google, Bing and WorldCat gave nothing back. DrStrauss talk 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::*I didn't find the sources on search engines, either. A lot of women from the 1800s and 1900s aren't searchable that way. You have to dig them out of a database that's usually behind a paywall, though the Internet Archive sometimes has sources for women from these time periods. In this case, I found the news sources on Newspapers.com. You made this nomination in good faith, {{u|DrStrauss}}. Women's history is really hard to uncover. If you're ever unsure about a woman's notability, ping me or any editor at Women in Red. Many of the members of that WikiProject are good at digging out sources and finding hidden history. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::*{{ping|Megalibrarygirl}} will do! DrStrauss talk 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Sourcing was poor as nominated but has now been amply demonstrated thanks to the work of Megalibrarygirl. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.