Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Abbott

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Donna Abbott}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Donna Abbott}})

Non-notable person, article is rife with unsubstantiated claims. Being inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame seems impressive; however, hundreds of people have been inducted into it. Yuchitown (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/educ/exhibits/womenshallfame/html/biographies.html Here's the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame]. Yuchitown (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: The subject has recieved a well-known and signficiant honor thus is suitable under WP:ANYBIO thus fullfilling WP:GNG. Contrary to nominator's assertion that the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame includes "hundreds of people", nominataor's claim is incorrect. The institution adds less than five honorees per year since inception in 1985. For 2025, only four women were included, including Abbott.

The Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honors Maryland women who have "made unique and lasting contributions to the economic, political, cultural, and social life of the state and to provide visible models of achievement for tomorrow's female leaders" and all fullfill WP:GNG.

Yuchitown, can you please give specific examples of your contention that the "article is rife with unsubstantiated claims"? All sources used and cited in the article are from reliable sources independent of the subject -- daily newspapers, magazines and otherwise.

It appears the objection by the nominator stems from the fact that this woman's "tribal affiliation" is self-identified (given Yuchitown's editing of the article). This is irrelevant for the notability discussion - as the individual fulfills WP:ANYBIO and there are reliable and independent sources substantiating them with coverage. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Honest question: does every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? That is her primary claim to fame. Her organization is not even state-recognized as a tribe by Maryland, so that doesn't contribution. The organization itself would have a difficult time establishing notability in Wikipedia, so being the first woman lead of it wouldn't automatically be considered notable. Yuchitown (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Following up, is every every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? Yuchitown (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Her inclusion in the Hall of Fame is not because of her role in the organization. It is in recognition of her work to share tribal history of the Eastern Shore in schools and promote it in the community. As well as her work on environmental issues. There are plenty of other Self Identified tribes on Wikipedia so I don't understand your justification of why it would not be notable enough for the encyclopedia.

::Maryland did not have a process for formally recognizing tribes until 2012. The state identified and serves this "Tribe" in the Department of Indian Affairs and has done so since the 1980s. You will understand that because of the history of the US many native peoples of the Eastern shore have not been able to maintain continuity in the ways that Western tribes have done so. The reason why they are not "formally recognized" is due to the lack of continuity. But the state does recognize them and they are included as with other self identified tribes in legislation and elsewhere.

::And yes, inclusion in a state women's hall of fame does qualify as notable under WP:GNG as it is a specific and rather limited honor. Nayyn (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Notability for Donna Abbott hinges on *her* actions and significant individual recognition in published sources. Not every leader of every organization is automatically notable. Any Wikipedia policy affirming that inclusion in a state women's hall of fame automatically qualifying an individual would be helpful. Yuchitown (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Separare comment, since this is a separate conversation: The notability of Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians could take place if that article were created. It's OR to state that the Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians is a "tribe." Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes run the gamut from large organizations with long histories and notability established from their activities being written about extensively in books and the press to organizations that barely have any published mentions at all; so some are notable as organizations; others not. I'm fairly well-versed on Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands and their histories, including coastal tribes. The Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs is comprised on people from unrecognized organizations and works with these organizations but that is not the same as state-recognition. Maryland is clear about who their [https://governor.maryland.gov/news/press/pages/governor-moore-and-lieutenant-governor-miller-host-historic-state-house-tribal-consultation-meeting.aspx three state-recognized tribes are]. Yuchitown (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I know that, and I think the article makes it clear that this "Band" is not a state recognized tribe. It doesn't hide that. I know there are many different arguments about self identification and I don't deny your extensive experience on this fact. But as you say it is a separate discussion and would be relevant for a discussion of the organization, not the person. This AfD is on the person Nayyn (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Abbott meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news and recognition at the state-wide level in Maryland. There are reliable sources supporting aspects of her work as chief, though I note that the article could use some tidying up (but that is *not* a criteria for deletion).DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't want to wade into this too much, but being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable. Native American sovereignty is important, but only having that a reason for your article here seems non-notable. There isn't a ton of sourcing anyway, so nothing helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It's described as a non-profit/charity as well, so this person is the "boss" of a barely recognized non-profit group... You'll need a ton of sourcing to show notability, I don't see that. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment-- your "delete" is wading into the conversation. An important distinction-- Abbott is not "notable" for being the chief. She is notable for the work that she has done in the community towards raising awareness of the tribal history of Maryland's Eastern Shore tribes that has been largely lost, and for her environmental advocacy. This is why she was awarded the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honor. So your argument that "being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable" doesn't really apply here. Nayyn (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Comment - A few years ago, WikiProject Women in Red did a "Halls of Fame" editing drive to turn redlinks blue of women in Halls of Fame. The guidelines there stated that entries listed of women without articles may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources. I think it may be useful to this discussion to analyze the sources per WP:POL, the guideline for notable politicians, which states that there needs to be significant press coverage for major local political figures (she is not a state political figure, but a local figure), and it does not seem that she is a "major" figure either. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I understand this, I saw the red link, and I saw that this person had more than ten years of coverage in independent news sources, including interviews in national publications (USA Today) about their educational advocacy and environmental activities (not centering on their tribal affiliation, the crux of the nomination's argument for sending here) and felt I could do a decent article with the material. Yes she is a local/ state level person who runs a charity, but the coverage I felt more than covered the requirements for WP:BIO as it is enduring, independent, etc. and focused on her, unlike some of the arguments made for coverage of local/state politicians whose coverage is usually contained to election resultsNayyn (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2025 (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.