Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary C. Whitman

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The result was keep in addition being withdrawn by nominator. ●DanMS • Talk 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary C. Whitman

Mary C. Whitman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of academic merit given, so not notable as scientist. President of Mount Holyoke College seems to me a local post, so not notable as a politician. Taemyr 10:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is that President of Mount Holyoke College is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. So there is not grounds for deletion. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, can't see anything wrong with the article other than this subjective notion of importance. Article is sourced, reflects sources, and educates people, as an encyclopedia should. Hiding Talk 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I lean toward inherent notability for presidents of more notable colleges (I admit I don't know where I'd draw the line, but Mt. Holyoke falls above it). If there were zero information other than her serving as president, I'd support a redirect, but there is a bit more than that. Unless I'm incorrect about how college presidents are selected (I believe they're appointed by the college board of trustees), it's not analogous to a locally elected politician. Propaniac 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect- nn. I can't see how merely being the president of an academic institution on its own has sufficient significance to merit a separate entry on a person. Perhaps a short few lines bio on the Mount Holyoke College article would suffice? Uranometria 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that most of the other entries at *List_of_Mount_Holyoke_College_people#Presidents are exactly the same format; any entries that do NOT offer additional information or possible claims to notability should really be grouped in this nomination. Propaniac 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the first two reasonings.Callelinea 14:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article about the school. When she headed the school (1848-1850) it was not a college, just a girls' school. Mt. Holyoke of 1850 was not the Mt. Holyoke of today in academic prestige. It did not become a college intil 1888. She was correctly title the "Principal" of a girls' school, and as such is not inherently notable by any stretch any more than other school principals. I could not find sources which indicate she had any significant or lasting effect on the school or on society, which makes the article a mere directory listing, and likely a permanent stub. If sources were found in the school library to write a great article about her, then an article could always be re-created. The article about her better-known predecessor looks ok, for instance. Edison 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - one of many Presidents of Mount Holyoke College who have their own article. Lradrama 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, barely notable, largely because of her position. Realkyhick 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Edison. I dont believe notability should be inherited due to the position and it would be hard to find sources that date to those days Corpx 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Being president of a well-heeled academic institution is definitely a notable accomplishment. --Nondistinguished 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, silly me, I thought becoming President (or equivalent title) of an institution was evidence of academic merit. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While academics is a criteria, most presidents these days are not chosen solely on academic merit. Corpx 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Corpx, read the article and look at the dates. DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither the article, nor the bio link makes any mention of her educational qualifications Corpx 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the history of women's education outside the UK, but was it even possible for women to obtain a formal degree in 1839? Espresso Addict 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks to be so, looking at Timeline of women's colleges in the United States Corpx 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Dhartung, WP:PROFTEST talks about academic works. It's possible that she would qualify by criteria 2, acknowledgment by scientists in same field, but the article does not even mention what her field is. Nowhere in WP:PROFTEST is having a high title within an academic institution mentioned. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Academic merit alone or academic and administrative merit combined, it's notable. And "a local post" --must be judging by "female seminary" without knowing about the school. Its relative status in 1850 was even higher than it is today. The president now will be a major academic figure--and the one then, a pioneer as well. DGG (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pioneer in women's education. Espresso Addict 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. Due to apparent consensus that her title is sufficent to pass WP:NOTE. Still feels a redirect would be better unless there are more content that could be added to the page. Also speedy close due to no editors(nominator included) suggesting deletion. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Pioneer in women's education. Perhaps only Antioch College, Russell Sage College, and SUNY New Paltz gave females degrees before the U.S. Civil War. Close this AfD please. Bearian 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. What more can be said about this person other than they were the president of this college? If nothing else, why shouldn't it be merged? Do tell. Burntsauce 23:21, 27 July 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.