Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice Ensor

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 The result was Keep after the article was improved. Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure. G1ggy! 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beatrice Ensor

Beatrice Ensor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:N, I see nothing significant on Google. It also may have WP:BLP issues G1ggy Talk - Chalk 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not a blp: "Born in Marseille on 11th August 1885..." MER-C 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this bio of a non-notable person that makes no assertions of importance. Groupthink 11:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google (and Google Books) actually gives some hits in academic journals and on other academic websites that seem to confirm her importance in theosophical education in the period between the wars. It is very difficult to understand why it was so urgent to nominate this article for deletion (it was created only yesterday) or how anybody can consider it appropriate to slap a "speedy deletion" tag on it. Helping the author with wiki-esoterica like how to make footnotes and citing sources would have been more constructive. Pharamond 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that I erred with that speedy tag, which is why I retracted it. However, an AfD nomination for this article was perfectly appropriate as a gate-keeper action. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which this article initally lacked. Fortunately, an AfD discussion can serve as a crucible to strengthen an article, but such buttressing is the responsibility of the page creator, not the content reviewers. Now on the discussion page for the article, I did point the original author in the direction of Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:BIO. It is up to the page creator, however, to do the initial legwork and come up with better source material than the official Mormon magazine. Do you really expect content reviewers to Google every single claim that's made on a Wikipedia page? I'm not going to do the author's work for her or him, but I will give her/him the benefit of the doubt and change my recommendation to a conditional keep. I do think "under construction" templates would be appropriate, however. Groupthink 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pharamond - a voice of reason. I feel like I've been jumped on from a great height by the thought police. I am a Wikipedia virgin and need help rather than knee jerk reactions threatening immediate sanctions. They don't seem to think that UNESCO approved organisations of 83 years standing are a reliable sourceEnsojer 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The source that I do not find reliable is New Era magazine. You need to cite materials from secondary academic sources documenting Beatrice Ensor's role in founding her UNESCO-approved organization of 83 year's standing. Groupthink 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further links for viewing: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/neille.PDF

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/obarae.pdf

http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=9347&9347_0=15400

http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/FERNIG_2.PDF

http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/erhise/ECER2002.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GGIR%2CGGIR%3A2007-14%2CGGIR%3Aen&q=%22beatrice+ensor%22+hungary&meta=

http://www.montessori-ami.org/ - AMI History Milestones World Conference on New Education, 1929 Ensojer 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Those first five citations are exactly what I was looking for, a nice mix of reliable primary and secondary sources. Nice work -- make sure you add those in the appropriate places to the article. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Groupthink 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but delete the farming details. Clarityfiend 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep' and condense. The saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is not applicable. Extraordinary claims means something outside the ordinary course of nature and human experience, & this is an article about a notable woman in her own field on endeavor. If the article had stated that she levitated, or became an Olympic runner in her maturity, or something of the sort, that's what meant by extraordinary. DGG 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. While the "extraordinary requires extraordinary" argument is certainly most frequently made in reference to claims of the paranormal or supernatural, it's not limited to that scope. "Norbert Qwijibo revolutionized the field of widget manufacturing," is an extraordinary claim, "the elephant population in Africa has recently tripled," is an extraordinary claim, and "John Hanson was really the first President of the United States," is an extraordinary claim. "Extraordinary" means that it contradicts a body of well-established knowledge, requiring the re-examination of allegedly established facts. When somebody says, "This woman was a notable historical figure," and she's not frequently mentioned in history texts, then you're well within your rights to say "Oh yeah? Prove it. Give me quality evidence." At the time this article was AfD'd, no such evidence had been provided, ergo the assertions of the article were extraordinary. I'll say it again: this article, at the time it was proposed for AfD, had not yet established notability. Groupthink 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep clearly notable, don't afd when you just want cleanup. --Buridan 15:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get that User:G1ggy just wanted cleanup? Groupthink 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
when i looked at the article the material was a mess, but clearly demonstrated notability. she says notability re

google, which others easily found, thus i concluded that the state of the article was likely more of an issue than its notability. this one needed cleanup, notability and citation needed tags, not... afd at this stage.--Buridan 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on User_talk:G1ggy asking him to withdraw his AfD nom. Groupthink 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody - have done a fair amount of work over this weekend adding citations, references and photographs. Please advise if this OK and how I can improve it further? Thanks for your helpEnsojer 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn per Groupthink. G1ggy! 23:29, 20 May 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.