Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Harriet Joseph


 * 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 redirect to List of Americans in the Venona papers. And perhaps briefly merge some content subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Emma Harriet Joseph

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text. Her name appears in a couple of other sources, but usually only as part of a similar list of people mentioned in the cables. This does not meet the threshold for significant coverage in reliable sources which is required to make someone notable - it's simply a passing mention. More generally, having been a communist, having worked for OSS, or having been a Soviet contact does not in itself make her notable, especially absent significant coverage in RS.

The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just curious. Is this a reliable source? Pbly not. Quis separabit?  18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure it matters - the "Emma Joseph" referred to there is a fictional character, not the same person this article's about. Note that the play's script puts her at age 26 in 1999 (that's when the play is set). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete a nonnotable spy. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources in lexisnexis Pokerkiller (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep or merge with List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers - some other entries there have very brief biographical information, so hers could be added to her name in the list. She was indeed named in the Venona papers, and she was even used as the main character in a play about the spy scandals: "After the Revolution". However, I don't know to what extent the play was based on fact. I will add a ref to the article, but wish it were easier to find more. I tried a few archives that I thought might be fruitful (e.g. The Nation Magazine) but it's quite possible that her name was not known until the Venona papers were unclassified in 1995. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This person is already listed in the List of Americans in the Venona papers article. As for the play, it's discussed above - the "Emma Joseph" in that play is a fictional character, completely un-related to the subject of this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The main asserted facts on which the nomination is based are simply wrong.  I am viewing google search results showing pages in The Verona Secrets which the nominator apparently could not or did not see.
 * It is false that "She is only mentioned once in the cited source, and that's in the appendix (which is just a list of hundreds of different people who were mentioned in the Venona Cables) rather than in the body of the text." That sentence links to appendix pages 353 and 388.  However the sentence is false:  she is covered in the main text of The Verona Secrets in passage over pages 294-295.
 * It is false that "The second paragraph of the article appears to be OR, and is drawn from a primary source (the one cable that mentions her)." The second paragraph material is directly supported by the main text in pages 294-295.
 * Incorrect premises of nomination ---> we reject the nomination. -- do ncr  am  01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? The "premise" of the nomination is that the subject is not notable, and nothing that you write here changes that.  You are confused on a number of points.  First: she really does appear only once, in the appendix, of the cited source (the cited source being this book).  That is the only source cited in the article.  You are correct that she also appears to be mentioned briefly in a totally different book called  The Venona Secrets.  But that source is not cited in the article.  (Although it should be, and I can see that it does in fact support the second paragraph).  But again, the coverage is a passing mention of her - very far from the significant, in depth coverage that is required for someone to be notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I added the additional source for the 2nd paragraph and removed the OR tag. I still don't think this person is notable though - being mentioned in passing in 1 book, and listed in the appendix of the other is not nearly enough coverage to make her notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. Searches didn't turn up anything which would help their significance, and the current sources to rise to meet the notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Americans in the Venona papers - apparently we don't know anything else about her, so a stand-alone article is not warranted, as she fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This person is only somewhat notable, and the only justified thing seems to be a mere mentioning over at List of Americans in the Venona papers. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (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.