Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Dale Biddle Andrews

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Dale Biddle Andrews

Annie Dale Biddle Andrews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Claim to notability is that she was the "first woman to receive a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley" in 1911. Beyond that she was a university math instructor and got a paper published in the journal of the American Mathematical Society in 1933. [1] Is this sufficient? 650l2520 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve. - Notable.--Edtropolis 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and improve per above. "First woman to receive a Ph.D in Mathematics from UC Berkley" may be a bit awkward, but it does at least hint at notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • very weak keep per Ten. Female mathematicians were very rare at the time. JoshuaZ 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with University of California at Berkeley.--Svetovid 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or find somewhere to merge I added some more information; There is probably some further historical information, which would certainly help. But I really have doubts about notability for WP purposes: 1/she's probably somewhere like the 20th or 30th US American woman with a PhD in math. (the 1st was Winifred Edgerton Merrill in 1883 at Columbia 2/ there were a number of American universities where women had previous received PhD's: Yale, Chicago, Illinois, Cornell and especially Bryn Mawr; 3/ Many of the other women from that year and before had a considerably more distinguished career, either as a mathematician or mathematics educator, eg Christine Ladd-Franklin. 4/most of the ones with distinguished careers do not yet have articles.
So, do we make an article for the first in each school? We certainly do not merge the hundred of people each year who get phd's from berkeley into the main article, whether or not they are notable, not even the first man and the first woman in each subject--this has been done for no other subject.

What we should probably do is start making pages for major math depts-- & for the major depts at univs. like Berkeley--no US dept now has its own article, but Cambridge & some russian ones do--but that s a long-term project. I can see making an article for 1st women phds in general, but this would be a major project that would amount to OR, unless there is a good source. DGG 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I don't see how that would amount to OR as long as each was sourced as being first for something. JoshuaZ 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is a special individual given the difficulty of obtaining the degree and especially pursuing that course as a female in an all-male world. I would certainly think that it could be expanded. Maybe the folks at Gender Studies WikiProject could help. JodyB talk 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not sufficiently notable by WP:NN for a standalone article; in particular, she is noteworthy for only one thing. I'm against merging into Berkeley's article unless every school has such information included. One might consider merging her into List_of_female_mathematicians, but her mathematical work is not sufficiently notable for that (poorly maintained) page. In summary, not every local first achievement is encyclopedic.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Notable for only one thing is still notable, though the article definitely needs work. Edward321 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily so. From WP:PROF: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single ... event ... it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. per above arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 18 June 2007 (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.