Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Espie


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Edith Espie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no apparent notability There do not seem to be any references psecifically about her.  DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the offline sources? DS (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having a street named after you satisfies WP:ANYBIO, in particular, "received a well-known and significant award or honor". WWGB (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like the precedent that "eponym of a street = notability" would set, honestly. DS (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A town's street being named after one is hardly "a well-known or significant honor." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Edith Espie was a significant woman who made a large contribution to the community of Alice Springs by caring for people and making a success of her life even after being institutionalised as a young child as a part of the Stolen Generations. It is also notable that she was a successful jockey in the 1920s as an Aboriginal woman. It is also notable that her son  William "Bill" Espie became so successful. The lack of resources about her are not the fault of her but a lack of care taken to record women is history; especially those significant for caring roles. User:Aliceinthealice —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is not significant coverage of any of these things in the article. As she was a locally significant person who lived and died in modern times, could you find an obituary or a "hometown heroes" type of write-up about her? Were there newspapers that mentioned her jockey career? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Her son being the subject of a Wikipedia article does not help her case for notability. See Notability: people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect to say that there is no documentation of her life in the article, even including the horse racing. Two books, which unfortunately I don't have full access to, indicate that the information is in there. AGF means we need to assume that the article is correctly documented even if we don't have full access. Maybe someone from Australia, like might have better luck getting full access. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, User:Megalibrarygirl... I did not say there was no documentation of her life in the article. The issue is that the coverage provided does not make a strong case for the subject passing Wikipedia notability guidelines (it has improved over the last day thanks to the work of User:RebeccaGreen). It is not a question of whether the information is in there, but what information is in there. Consider that the sources that mention Espie but are primarily about her son are passing mentions. Espie is mentioned in a self-published book about street names in Alice Springs and the book about horse racing in the area. The details about horse racing are scant, but could probably be better--she was in-demand as a jockey when she was a teen; her being an Aboriginal woman jockey makes her unique (enough for a Wikipedia article?? Are there any details that would allow her to qualify for notability as a sports person?) It may be that the sources given have more information and could be used to significantly improve the article, but most of us do not have access to them. Agreed that someone from or with research connections in Australia may be able to access more. I will keep researching to see whether it sinks or swims. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge The article cited has no significant coverage specifically about its subject. What there is in the sources isn't enough. If a journalist ever did a deep-dive into the life of Espie by talking to some of the children she helped, or if Espie received newspaper coverage when the street was named after her, please add those sources. If those don't exist or can't be found, this article just doesn't cut it. Consider merging existing facts into the article about her son. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a person from the stolen generation who died in the 1980s. Both situations present problems for several reasons. Those in the stolen generation are marginalized people. People living before we digitized everything often don't have the coverage in news sources (esp. if they're part of marginalized groups) saved fully to databases. Nevertheless, she was documented in a book with biographies about people in Alice Springs. She was also an early horse jockey. Even if we don't have full access to the books, we need to AGF that the information in the books has been faithfully represented in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have looked at this about five times and spent a considerable amount of time researching it. I think you must assume the person who wrote this is doing their best for the encyclopaedia. Personally, I've created articles with references that are only archive numbers, as that is all I have received from the university. You don't know if what your getting is genuine. So there is a level of peer trust, that must exist for the whole article to come into existence. So I think it is genuine. I can't see it as being a hoax. It is worth noting we are drastically short of these kind of articles. Probably not the best reason to keep, but I don't see any reason to see it be a hoax, fake or false and must assume then she is notable as it is well referenced.   scope_creep Talk  12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep on the assumption of good faith that offline books have more detail (which they generally do). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is built around verifiability. This means that people must source the information. If it is true that people of her ethnic group at the time received little coverage, we cannot fixs that. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We are here to reflect secondary source coverage of a topic, and we are not seeing that here. Having a street, or a school, named after you is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable figure in central Australia across several different fields, and with some quite remarkable accomplishments. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Drover's Wife. What remarkable accomplishments? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources in the article are enough to establish notability, and on the basis that the article was created in good faith and offline sources would be able to establish more information. The assumption that "if it's not online it mustn't be notable" (or its relative "if I can't find it on the first page of a Google search it mustn't be notable"), which seems to inhabit AfD discussions, is a terrible precedent to set. Bookscale (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't agree that having a street named after you gives presumed notability, but I believe that she meets WP:BASIC. This article has been further improved with more sources. I have been meaning to go to the Northern Territory Library to check the books given as sources, and I will still try to do that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * KeepWeak delete Changing vote in light of detailed information from additional sources found by User:Oulfis and User:RebeccaGreen. Good work! I will keep trying to research this too. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where's the notability? What's she done that's noteworthy? She looked after some local kids, she participated in local sports, she sold food, she served beer, she ironed shirts, she what? The coverage? The majority is about her son with passing mentions. The exceptions, Petrick is locally self published. The racing one is by a tiny local publisher who lack a reputation of fact checking, lacks any real reputation. The last is a personal anecdote, not independent coverage. The street? Not a major honour, especially for that crappy little street. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Megalibrarygirl, Scope creep, Cas Liber, Bookscale, RebeccaGreen. It's not just about assuming good faith, we also need to evaluate the reliability of the sources. As for the assuming good faith, everyone can check a few things. Petrick, Jose (1989). The history of Alice Springs through street names. Note, 1989. From the Place Name Register, "Date Registered	10 May 2000". Hmmm. Not likely to be in that book. Bulldust & bough shades .... What does that verify? "This was during ... was very unusual". That whole section could be verified by a book that doesn't even mention her and there is nothing in that passage that suggests the book mentions her.
 * So instead of assuming let's look at facts. Petrick 1989 does not have Espie St/Edith Espie but they do appear in the 2005 and 2010 editions. Has about the same as the Wikipedia article apart from some details about her 7 children. What it does not do is support the peacocked claim of being a "sought-after" jockey. "A keen horsewoman she became a jockey in her teens riding in colours at local races". Skirting uncomfortably to very close paraphrasing as does other parts. Dale 1981 covers over a hundred years in a 52 page book. If Espie is even mentioned in there I didn't see it. There is definitely no depth of coverage about her. Looking through the book the section in this article that it follows appears to be pure synth, original research, the big industry claim being particularly dubious. So no, don't just assume.
 * What we have is one source that goes into any depth about her but that source is self published. One non RS is not near enough for GNG or basic. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very tenuous. There is not single a fact you can state that would prove that she was notable. She seemed to exist as much as I can say. I've removed the Ancestry ref. Its non-rs.  scope_creep Talk  08:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What good does only removing the citation do to this already weak article if its information is going to remain? Consider either removing the information (the dates) that I added in my edit or adding a citation needed tag. Additionally, the citation to the index of probate records, which provided dates for Espie's common law husband (and further evidence of his existence), is a reliable source; it is an index to government legal records that has been purchased by or donated to Ancestry. It is not user-generated and can't be edited or manipulated by Ancestry users. But I can see how those unfamiliar with Ancestry would follow the general guideline of the perennial websites list without evaluating the source, and won't try to fight that battle here. I have found another source for the index and cited it, though this does not include the reference number to the record of the man in question. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have obtained Espie's funeral notice and the pages from the much-discussed book of street names. Nothing of interest in the funeral notice, though it does have her interment location which I shall add to the article if it isn't already there. The street names book's copyright page does not have a date. There are a few paragraphs about Espie, but none of it is detailed. More than half of it is about her children and what they have done in life. This level of detail may have been appropriate for a woman who lived, worked, and played a sport in, say, the 1200s, but doesn't quite cut it for the 1900s. She does not seem to qualify for any major "FIRST" either. When I had changed my vote from DELETE to KEEP, one of the major things that swayed me with the finding of Olive Ververbrants' paper that is cited in the article. While I am reluctant to dismiss anecdotal evidence, especially for BLP, I can't say it pushes Espie over the notability threshold either. (On a side note, the article on Gloria Ouida Lee, who is mentioned in Espie's article, was created last month and may be about another non-notable person from the same area.) I have changed my vote above and am, as ever, eager to change my vote yet again if compelling evidence is found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable figure in Australia in several different fields. Wm335td (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl and Cas Liber. Pleased to see that the AfD has had one good result, which is significant improvement of the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2019 (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.