Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isophene Goodin Bailhache

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 delete. Tone 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isophene Goodin Bailhache

Isophene Goodin Bailhache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I spent some time, pondering over this but am unsure, as to what's the case for notability of the subject, in terms of the sourcing.

The sole thing that seems likely is that she can have a remote claim of notability as Vice-Chairman of Historic Spots of the Daughters of the American Revolution.But, I fail to find a single source that covers anything near that locus.

Ref 1--A source published by the very organisation, that she vice-chaired.Fails criterion of independent sourcing.N

Ref 2-Genealogical database.Does not contribute an iota to notability.--N

Ref 3-Unless I've gone bat-shit blind, I don't see how this supports the text in the article (or might be used to support damn anything, as to her).--N

Ref 4-Can be easily used for verifiability purposes but ought be charitably described as something that contains anything and everything (~1800 bios), about any woman that managed to wade slightly above the median-class.

That it seems to be the sole mentionable work of the author in his lifetime, got a mixed review (which praised the efforts but criticised certain exclusions) do not instill a high level of, confidence.

Overall, (IMO), it is pretty reliable for verifiability but for nothing much else.

To take an example, we don't even consider ODNB, (which has a far greater reputation as to publishing house and the compiling stuff) in the regard of making anyone auto-notable.That speaks enough as to mine disagreeing that it propels someone to automatic-notability or contributes heavily to the factor.

Basically, a partial N, as to establishment of notability.Might contribute by some extent.

Ref 5-College year book which does not mention the subject but rather the death-date of his father.Superb! N

Ref 6-A list of deaths, in a local newspaper, that mentions her mother's death.Does not mention the subject, yet again.N

Ref 7, 8 & 9-Genealogical database.Does not contribute to notability.N

Ref 10-Does not mention the subject.But, mentions DAR.N

Ref 11--I was happy to finally find the first speck of coverage about (her)/(her works) but to my utter regret, it devoted only two lines.The press was probably more catalysed by her family-tree than the event:-) YN.

Ref 12 and 13--Surely being listed in the social register is an indicator of encyclopedic notability.Sigh......N

Ref 14,15,16 and 17-What the heck are these? That she was presiding over trivial social gatherings, which made it to the local-news-clipping, (as a form of invite/note) is encyclopedic stuff? And, which of that lends any to notability? N

Ref 18--She has not anything to do with the painting except that she was the one to donate it.The claim to notability is surely there!N

Ref 19-Yeah, she died and that has made, as a trivial mention, to a local daily.Mind that there were no obituaries et al.N

Overall, despite the quasi-good efforts of SusunW, I'm afraid that it resembles a case of CITESPAM and is an example of an article without any source that either demonstrates her notability or devotes significant-encyclopedic-coverage to her.

I'm happy to pull off my nomination, shall more significant sourcing is located.

And, a redirect to Daughters of the American Revolution can be executed.∯WBG^converse 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The "quasi-good" in the nomination statement is a personal attack, and the characterization of one of the most significant references (reference 3, an entry about her in a biographical dictionary) is just plain dishonest (the direct link to the page in question is https://archive.org/stream/womenofwestserie00binh#page/20 in case anyone else wants to verify that this is indeed an in-depth biographical entry about the subject and does in fact support the content of the article). The article is adequately sourced and two of its sourced claims (her work for the DAR and "prominent member of San Francisco society") provide claims of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your brazen personal attack , over the very-above ¡vote, about me and my motivations, I find it a tad ironic to listen to what's a PA from you. Now that, you've removed it in entirety, post my message on your t-p, you need to know that once messages are replied to, in any form or manner, retractions ought be executed by strike-outs, not deletions but then I am not surprised.

Anyways, quasi-good was not intended as a personal attack and rather as a appreciation of her salvation efforts.

That being said, the qualifier can probably qualify as condescending and I've struck that out.But,anyways, Susun's efforts were constructive but suboptimal, IMO and that's what I tried to convey, by a rather poor choice of words.

Yeah, the subject works for the DAR and vice-chaired it. So? Given that not a single source has bothered any about the issue, (barring devoting a single line), I fail to see as to how that leads to notability, in light of the current sourcing.Bring me more sources, covering her in light of DAR stuff and I will happily pull off the nomination.

As to the biographical dictionary, it seems to be the sole mentionable work of the author in his lifetime, got a mixed review (which praised the efforts but criticised certain exclusions et al) do not instill a high level of, confidence.

FWIW, we don't even consider ODNB, (which has a greater reputation as to publishing house and compiling stuff) in the regard of entitling auto-notability.That speaks enough as to mine stance.

As to a prominent member of society, meh. I have pretty covered the aspect in my nomination-statement.∯WBG^converse 18:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge perhaps a few sentences or a short paragraph into the Daughters of the American Revolution article. Delete the rest. Not convinced that she is notable enough to merit a whole individual article for herself. The creator of the article was blocked indefinitely last month. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. How is the block relevant to this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned it more as an aside, rather than as part of the argument, so that readers of this can be aware that the creator of the article is unable to comment on this AFD himself or herself as he or she is blocked indefinitely. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Kind Tennis Fan, I guess a redirect shall be more optimal, because if we think of devoting a line or two (which is bare-minimum for a merge) in the target-article about the subject, I have enough confidence that we can do that about all the people to have graced the chairs of presidents, chairwoman and vice-chairman, who ought have garnered equal coverage, (if not more) and if we execute that, umm......a spectacle will await us at the target.Though, a CFORK can be done, in such cases:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to go along with a redirect. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Taken together, the sourcing is enough to build a brief biography upon, and enough to make the case that such an article should exist. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. WCM_email 13:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd accept Chair of the DAR committee as sufficient for probable notability, but I would not extend that to vice-chair, even were there reliable proof of it. (and I wouldn't redirect for vice-chair--we should probably make an article for that Committee as well as for the main DAR, and include in that more specific article a list for all the chairs---then those who wanted to to what really would help in writing about notable women would have a more trustworthy list of names of those who might actually be notable.

Ref 4 is absurdly unreliable for notability , any more than who's who in America, which it much resembles. First, there's selectivity: according to the preface,(p.16) it includes "women who had done something of a creative, constructive, or 'outstanding' nature" -- that's "something" not "something notable or even important" , Second, the information gives no specifics, like dates, and it is derived entirely from "questionnaires"--the publisher even offers to send the standard questionnaire for the next edition to anyone who might ask for it! The comparison to ODNB is very helpful: in , the information there is always accompanied by exact detail and by references to the sources, consequently being covered by a main entry in ODNB is unquestionable notability , and probably even being covered by a brief entry there is also--I can not remember anyone with such an entry being rejected where in the last 12 years--it is the very model of the ideal biographical source for WP. The rest of the references are mostly irrelevant to her, and in all cases totally useless. (By the way, one of the ways librarians are taught to judge reference books is to read the prefatory material,. at WP this seems to be almost never done) DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for your arguments.At any case, do we take ODNB as a case of auto-entitling notability? I don't think so:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we usually do, actually. (I am certainly not claiming that the biographical dictionary used here is at the same level.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is the same , by which we would accept that anything with an article in the EB deserves an article here. The fundamental rule, is that WP is an encyclopedia , and covers at least the same coverage as accepted general and specialized print encyclopedias. The usual rule for biographical encyclopedias has been that we accept the principle national biographical encyclopedia of each country as an authority. The DNB/ODNB is the model. (The current online version has full articles, and brief articles associated with the main articles. We certainly accept the main, we have usually accepted the secondary also--we do not of course accept a mere mention in an article, just by itself. There is no equivalent for the US: the nearest is the 19th century Appleton's, which had notoriously erratic standards, both of inclusion and accuracy. Some of the ones for other countries have special considerations: Dictionary of NZ Biography and Australian Dict. Biog. both make a point of including "representative" individuals as well as significant ones. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, usually when an article is this developed there is a reason, but I can't find that reason. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolute strikeout trying to turn up this name, either as Isophene Goodin Bailhache, Isophene G. Bailhache, or Isophene Bailhache on Newspapers.com. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrite Perhaps you should have tried "Mrs John Bailhache". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Forty-five hits, all incidental, none counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some hits for "Mrs. John Bailhache" (not all the same woman) and "Mrs. J. M. Bailhache", but in sources on Google Books and newspapers.com that I can't access, so it isn't clear to me how relevant they are. I do have a sneaking suspicion that if Wiki Loves Monuments, we might think seriously about acknowledging people who played an early role in deciding what counts as a monument and how that should be marked (which is what she did as National Vice-Chairman of Historic Spots). Alongside such formal roles, "socialite" is a vague term that in the context of the time could indicate considerable informal influence that is not likely to be minuted (but might explain her inclusion in Women of the West). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from the introductory material in WoW it seems that anyone could nominate anyone for coverage, and if you answered their questionnaire, you got included. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 7 October 2018 (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.