Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Bake


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. There was indeed extensive literature about her. (non-admin closure)  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  00:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Adriana Bake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The one source (and yes, there is only one here) is not the main issue here. There has been very little editing here in the past 4 years, which is plenty of time for users to find relevant and sourced information about her. In addition, every information about her could be placed in her husband's article (the first sentence in the lead references her as a governor's wife), as at the moment it is barely enough to fill a stub. Additionally, the page has seen very little traffic in the past years, and the only pages linking to it are overwhelmingly userpages, as opposed to content articles, all of which doesn't help its notability. Overall my opinion here is based on 3 criteria from WP:Notable - 1.Significant coverage, 2.Sources and 3. Presumed. Cheers!  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. There's clearly been no effort at WP:BEFORE. The source in the article is a 1000-word biography of the subject in a dictionary of national biography, satisfying WP:ANYBIO. She's discussed in The Social World of Batavia (2004), and Google Books shows many other sources in Dutch. I oppose the nominator's proposal to treat this woman simply as a footnote in her husband's page. pburka (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There is more but this is sufficient. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being the first governor's wife not born in the Netherlands is not a notable position/role and notability is not inherited. KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some truth in your arguments. The position is not inherently notable. On the other hand, it surely does NOT preclude notability either. In fact, when daring to take some spotlights, the position provided potential for attention and coverage. As Jean Gelman Taylor points out, 18th century first lady Adriana Bake seized that potential. It made her into an 18th century historical figure who was covered then, and continues to be discussed to date. In other words, Adriane Bake meets the WP:GNG and also WP:ANYBIO. gidonb (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's only a woman, so let's just ignore the sources about her that show that she easily passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a historic figure, there is no concern of WP:BLP. As pburka points out, the sources are impressive. Passes WP:ANYBIO and the WP:GNG per:
 * Taylor, Jean Gelman (2004). The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-299-09474-4.
 * Zuiderweg, Adrienne (2014). "Bake, Adriana Johanna (1724–1787)". Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland [Digital Women Lexicon of the Netherlands].
 * Bosma, Ulbe; Raben, Remco (2008). Being "Dutch" in the Indies: A History of Creolisation and Empire, 1500–1920. NUS Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-9971-69-373-2.
 * Keep: the principal source is Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland which, according to Google translate of the Dutch article, is a supplement to Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland and is a project of Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands (not of a fringe pressure group), so I think her inclusion there confirms notability. (The en.wiki redirect Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland leads to a subproject and isn't particularly informative).  Pam  D  10:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the sources and the subject is clearly of historical interest.--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ungood, PamD, and Ipigott. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we still living in times where any woman is considered to be the property of her father or her husband? This nomination, and the support that it has received, is simply incredible. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has nothing to do with "property". No-one here has said that or treated the subject remotely that way. When nominating, I just noticed that every sentence in the article referenced her husband in one way or another. Other editors did point out that she has been extensively documented, and that's great! Then I hope we can expand the article to better represent how she was so much more than that. Please just don't confuse this with a desire to erase her or with malicious intent. Cheers!  Double Plus Ungood (talk)  00:15, 25 October 2021 (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.