Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia C. Bulat

:{{la|Virginia C. Bulat}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Virginia C. Bulat}})

Non-notable amateur historian. Co-author of two volumes of local history, of no discernible academic impact beyond her local community. No independent coverage except for an obituary. Obviously fails WP:PROF notability criteria, and has no other claims to notability except for her writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - From WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". Her work has been cited a by multiple articles revolving around Chicago history.[http://saltcreekgreenwayassociation.org/files/benfuller.html][http://www.lyonslibrary.org/Library%20History.htm][http://villageoflyons-il.com/DocumentsAndForms/Documents/PDFs/Community%20Guide%20Final.pdf][http://www.earlychicago.com/biblio.php?biblioid=285a] Her work is considered an antique.[http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/aar/19361.shtml]. Now, take into account these books were published in the 60s. This is over 30 years since the invention of the internet. I can't find anywhere in the notability guidelines where "impact beyond her local community" is even relevant. Also, if you check the references, #3 is a book talking about the work she did - and she is not a contributing author to it. I believe applying WP:PROF to her is an inappropriate choice - as she is not a professor (aka, the professor test fails for her), and as such, the criteria is not valid. Stick to author - that is what she is known for. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Correction: no, footnote #3 isn't a book about her. It's just another book by another historian about a related topic of village history. And the mere fact that some other authors have cited her works doesn't signify notability either: every book except for the most obscure ones gets cited sometimes, by someone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reply: So, you have read Village on the River, 1888-1988: A History of Lyons, Illinois in Celebration of the Centennial of Its Incorporation I would like to point out Bulat's work is being cited 30 years after it was written. Not every author can claim that. Also, despite your claims, her work being cited DOES make her notabile per WP:AUTHOR. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Citations 30 years after publication is nothing special and nothing particularly impressive in the field of history. This could still be said about virtually every history researcher. WP:AUTHOR speaks about impact of an entirely different dimension (such as cases where whole books get written about the author in question.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Virginia C. Bulat for deletion

This article should not be deleted for several reasons -

1) there is very little information available for those interested in studying the local history of Illinois, both the books by Virginia C. Bulat are early examples of a WOMAN HISTORIAN documenting the rapid historical changes in the region that was developed into the suburbs of Illinois;

2) she was a WOMAN HISTORIAN who was of Polish-American heritage - there should be recognition and acknowledgment as "notable" of the published work of a POLISH-AMERICAN WOMAN who was involved AT THE LOCAL LEVEL in PRESERVING CHICAGO SUBURBAN or NORTHERN ILLINOIS HISTORY;

3) this artile will be linked to the stub - Hoffman Tower - this is a state recognized landmark much discussed in the two books written by Virginia C. Bulat -- the wikipedia stub is extremely deficient in documenting the history of the landmark. Both Virginia C. Bulat's books were used in the process of achieving landmark status.

4) addressing one of the reasons for proposed deletion - there is no current coverage on these books - this is because the author Virginia C. Bulat has been dead since 1986. Due to her early historical documentation, and through the efforts of her co-author Rose Benedetti - Hoffman Tower was made into a recognized landmark in the 1970s and 1980s.

5) Local Lyons and Riverside news articles citations can be retrieved from the local libraries to document the preservation efforts -- this will take time to retrieve.

6) a related article will be added to Wikipedia on co-author Rose Marie Benedetti, an ITALIAN-AMERICAN WOMAN HISTORIAN of LOCAL ILLINOIS HISTORY. Both articles (Bulat and Benedetti) are important in documenting that WOMEN HISTORIANS whose IMMIGRANT ANCESTORS came to CHICAGO have worked to document the history of SUBURBAN CHICAGO, not just recently, but starting in the 1950s, as Chicago was just starting its expansion into COOK COUNTY.

7) Personal information on the Virginia C. Bulat has been removed to emphasize her professional contributions.

8) As background to my comments made above, I am a professional historian and professor of history (Ph.D., UCLA, 1999).

User:CACD29 originator of this article, 1 March 2011, 10:00 a.m. —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

• Comment. I verified that the work of this independent scholar has had some impact, but I am not sure if she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• As a courtesy, I gave the creator some suggestions on her talk page, and added some material and a rescue tag to the article. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Google for her name and .gov websites and only one thing shows up. www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/chpo/chicago_portage.pdf Her work is used as a reference. Search for her name and .edu and you find two results. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Virginia+C+Bulat+%22+site%3A.gov&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&source=hp&q=%22Virginia+C+Bulat+%22+site:.edu&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=c5b709285d5585d6] Google Scholar has results appearing, but I didn't look through those. This person is a notable enough historian to have their work quoted in places, and still studied today. Nothing gained by deleting this article. Dream Focus 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It has been argued above that (1) her work has had impact (citations) by Turlo Lomon and (2) that there is no coverage of her books because she was deceased in 1986 by User:CACD29. Both of these claims are demonstrably false. The citations in point (1) are nothing more than [http://villageoflyons-il.com/DocumentsAndForms/Documents/PDFs/Community%20Guide%20Final.pdf pamphlets] and [http://saltcreekgreenwayassociation.org/files/benfuller.html web-pages]. We typically require mentions in non-ephemeral sources, e.g. national news publications, texts, journal articles, and the like. Moreover, there is a well-established consensus that there must be hundreds of such citations, if arguing notability on the basis of the impact of one's work. As to point (2), WorldCat shows that the reason her books are not well known is simply that they were never distributed at more than a local level. The [http://www.worldcat.org/title/lyons-a-history-of-a-village-and-area-important-for-300-years/oclc/270767678&referer=brief_results "Lyons"] book is held by just one institution, while the [http://www.worldcat.org/title/portage-pioneers-and-pubs-a-history-of-lyons-illinois/oclc/5725193&referer=brief_results "Portage"] book is held by only 14, all local. Situation unlikely to change, given that both were published almost 50 years ago. These observations clearly support nom's assessment: non-existent impact in the context of WP notability requirements. Friendly advice on some of the additional points above: please refrain from arguments on the basis of sex. Also suggest deferring the creation of Benedetti article until verdict is rendered on this one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

:A dozen libraries on their index have the book. Obviously books about a state's history aren't likely to be found outside that state. All of these libraries thought Village on the River, 1888-1988: A History of Lyons, Illinois in Celebration of the Centennial of Its Incorporation was a notable enough book to include in them. Dream Focus 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::*To answer your doubts about WorldCat ("I don't see as how worldcat is a reliable source. Where does it list what institutions hold a book? Seems to have just a small number of libraries" – this seems to have been struck-out), this database is the world's largest bibliographic database and it itemizes the collections of 71,000 libraries in 112 countries (both statements from our WP page). WorldCat shows the institutional holdings of a book, which, by long-standing consensus, we take as a reliable indicator of impact or significance. To your current point, I would largely agree: local history books are generally not held very widely ... which means that they (and their authors) are generally not encyclopedic fodder. There are lots of exceptions, of course, for example [http://www.worldcat.org/title/westmoreland-and-portland-places-the-history-and-architecture-of-americas-premier-private-streets-1888-1988/oclc/17354068&referer=brief_results this book] about a small 2-street neighborhood in Saint Louis, MO. I'm afraid that any way you look at this, Bulat's notability is nil. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

• Delete I am having trouble understanding the international relevance of this subject for our international encyclopedic resource. I don't feel the subject passes WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:Articles don't have to be "international". Or relevant to any group. Most aren't. Dream Focus 03:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• While I am sympathetic to the creator-scholar, I would agree to delete, based on the evidence found by User:Agricola44. It now seems clear that this author is just not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Completely agree. We should all be striving for better representation of women in WP. I just don't think we can do that legitimately by violating our own policies. This is an unfortunate case, but likewise an uncontroversial one. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

::*Yes, that is why I worked so hard to rescue Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon, amongst other articles of interest to women. We need "better representation of women in WP" but not "by violating our own policies". Bearian (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the national park service believes her to be a notable and reliable source for information, shouldn't we? [http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/chpo/chicago_portage.pdf] They reference her book in their historical publications. Dream Focus 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Reliable" and "notable" aren't the same thing. The citations merely show people treat her as a reliable source of information. But the National Park Service has no opinion about whether she is notable for having a Wikipedia entry. Every bona fide researcher can be a reliable source about something. That doesn't mean every researcher should have a Wikipedia article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• The notability guidelines for this are at WP:Author. The first one says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Others keep citing her research. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Obviously, there's room for interpretation of how "widely" counts as "widely". But I would suggest that "people who are interested in the history of village XYZ" is hardly a circle large enough to justify a description of "widely" in any meaningful sense. For the WP:AUTHOR guideline to make any sense at all, "widely cited" certainly needs to be interpreted in a way different from "cited by whoever happens to be interested in the same extremely narrow topic that this author specialized on". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I think the operative words in what you said above are widely cited. I hardly think that a single, unpublished white-paper by one Edward T. Bilek of 1839 Wisconsin Avenue, Berwyn Illinois satisfies this requirement. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
• Delete the subject doesn't pass any of the WP:PROF criteria i.e no substantial impact, no prestigious recognitions and no important academic posts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sad that the ARS cannot find enough to document this person better, but I would like to have her biography kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::I may be wrong, but I think if properly done so as to preserve credit and copyright, the article can be transferred over to another wiki or something in Wikia. But regardless, wanting something kept is not an acceptable argument in an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:AUTHOR and the arguments outlined above Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I deeply dislike when a new author who is making contributions we want has one of his early creations thrown into the prod/afd process without warning. I'm glad to see well-researched articles like William Harvey Gibson and Carl Owen Dunbar, and I thank the author for that effort. However, I hate to say that Virginia C. Bulat is, at best, very borderline, and at least the editor can know moving forwards where to concentrate their efforts. The author should also be aware that although Ms. Bulat does not seem to merit her own article under current guidelines and policies, that doesn't mean she can't be mentioned in some other appropriate article(s), such as Hofmann Tower. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Very good point that I think we could all agree on. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

• Delete fails our criteria for author or WP:PROF The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.