Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Simpson (house servant)

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. There is clearly a consensus to keep the article, but all commentators noted that it needs to be edited to remove the extraneous material which is 'bloating' it, and to ensure that only demonstrably factual information (rather than original research) remains. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Simpson (house servant)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to this comment on my user talk page, "this is an instance of using Wiki as a platform for a narrow group of scholars to advance original research." This is not what Wikipedia is for. Simpson might be a notable footnote in history, but given that there is just not enough that is clearly and definitively known about her, I'd say that the available published scholarship is not yet to the point where a useful encyclopedia article can be written. At best, a mention of her role in the celebration of Washington's birthday can be made at that article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit/stub down. The current article may contain much original research but the subject is notable and has received significant coverage in books and newspapers. See, e.g. Root and Branch: African Americans in New York and East Jersey, 1613-1863, Sojourner Truth's America, news and news. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the subject has received much coverage, but as indicated by the present article, the coverage has been contradictory and largely based on hearsay and legend. Historians have not yet settled the issue on the facts of this person, so there is not a single reliable source from which to build. Any encyclopedic article at this point would be a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the available contradictory sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about a living person, so there are no BLP concerns. Accordingly, the principle of verifiability, not truth applies here. See WP:!TRUTHFINDERS (essay). We do not require a single definitive reliable source for any article. See WP:NPOV. If different reliable sources have conflicting accounts, we should include summaries of those conflicting accounts in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources, excluding original research and WP:FRINGE accounts, if any. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or -> AfC but must undergo serious editing. This is undoubtedly the most definitive historical study of this woman, but unfortunately it isn't an encyclopedia article. The actual encyclopedic information will be very very small. However, there is (apparently) evidence that she was instrumental in supporting Washington's birthday as a holiday, and she is a verifiable folk figure. Note that the article is solely edited by a single SPA, which means that someone needs to confer with the editor about WP style and policies. I'm surprised that this seems to have come through AfC, and it would have been best if it had been cut down there when there were other editors working with the article's creator. Perhaps it could be sent back to AfC? I would be willing to confer with the editor there. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (at best); certainly slim down. This is supposed to be an encycloedia article on a person of slight notability. The presetn article is grossly too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (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.