Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Serena Hedges Bowen

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. RFerreira (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Serena Hedges Bowen

Ariel Serena Hedges Bowen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page has previously been deleted due to lack of notability. The text itselfappears to be have been copied and pasted from an unkown source, therefore copyright issues my be present. Maybe this should be a speedy. Hammer1980·^talk 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can't seem to find any sources which make this lady notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to John W.E. Bowen, Sr., her husband. She did have an independent writing career but there isn't much to demonstrate its importance. The bio comes from a 1902 book, Twentieth-Century Negro Literature, published in 1902 (thus out of copyright), to which she contributed an essay (or was anthologized). That's not quite enough, IMO, even keeping in mind cautions about historical persons and Google. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notable, as "called to teach History and English Language in the Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Ala" but a cut and paste using the present tense "... She is regarded as one of the foremost and best cultured women of her race. She reads Greek, Latin and German with facility, and is a superb housekeeper." is not really acceptable content. DGG (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- an anthologized writer who was notable enough to have a published biographical sketch and publications at a time when there was (even more) systematic bias against the contributions of black people and of women is notable enough for WP. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "She became Professor of Music in Clark University in 1895" can this be verified? I think the claim that she "is a superb housekeeper". ought to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A reliable source for her faculty position. Note that this is Clark Atlanta University, not the Clark University in Worcester MA. The article text appears to be from the introduction to this essay by her. It is out of copyright, so not a problem from the copyvio point of view, but I agree with DGG and Pete Hurd that we should rework it to make it more encyclopedic. According to this source, she is profiled in Notable Black American Women, vol. II, Gale, 1996, ed. Jessie Carney Smith. The fact that we have a reliable source calling her notable means, ipso facto, by our standards she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep per David Eppstein, clearly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep and rewrite as per above. --Crusio (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep per comments above. Also, she's notable not just as an academic (a 19th century female academic is almost per se notable) but as a Temperance Movement activist. ... I've done some of the encyclopedic-tone rewrites (including "superb housekeeper" (!), present-to-past tense, appropriate cats, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per notability comments above. RMHED (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• further comment - Nominator says that this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. In some instances multiple recreation strongly suggests notability, as in, people keep coming to the encyclopedia and seeing that an article that should be here is not. That's not a helpful guideline in, say, popular culture areas where they are active fanbases who think everything associated with their fandom is notable, but if a historical personage who has been dead for a hundred years keeps floating to the top, that gives us a clue. Err, morbid floating reference unintended. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge as above As the admin who deleted the original page (which certainly didn't assert notability and was an obvious copyvio) I'd agree this article has been improved enough to bring it into the margins of notability. ELIMINATORJR 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep please it can be rewriten but not ever should be speedy deleted yuckfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 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.