Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Ouida Lee


 * 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. Nomination has been withdrawn and only remaining delete !vote makes no reference to any policy. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Gloria Ouida Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass notability. What is apparent is that she lived and died... as is apparent about many if not most people in the modern era. What is not apparent is a life of relevance to an encyclopedia. This content is more appropriate for a Find a Grave memorial page. Lee appears in some local history books, but not for having done anything such as, but not limited to: working, creating art, being an activist, serving her community, being the "first" or "only" of something in her community, or being the subject of a biography for her said unique experiences. While her life would be a curiosity due to her double-minority ethnic heritage and related experiences in a time and place (moving from Australia to China and back), I see no indication that she or others wrote/published about these experiences (of racism) in depth. Her daughter named an environmental center after her, which is sweet... but surely that can't count for much. Perhaps worst of all is that, lacking other substance, this article largely tells the story of a woman's life by her relationships with men-- her father (who also has an article but whose notability I am beginning to question); her two husbands, who are described her father's reaction to them. But tone down the men, and there is even less of an article. This article is not an asset to WikiProject Women in red. The women on Wikipedia must meet notability on some merits of their own; Gloria Ouida Lee's life, if accurately reflected by this article and its sources, does not cut the mustard. Anyone with better sources for the Alice Springs area, please consider improving the article. If you disagree, PLEASE cite exactly what in notability she meets. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete merely living and migrating internationally does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject of the article passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She is represented in the permanent archive collection of the Women's Museum of Australia, formerly known as the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame. I also added a citation to the book, The Outsiders In: Telling Australia's Indigenous-Asian Story, when I searched for a variation on her name that included her maiden name, Gloria Hong Lee. One would imagine there are other citations out there with a thorough search of all variations of her name. Those two added items, in addition to the existing citations are enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Netherzone, but can I just point to the nominator's "Lee appears in some local history books..." which does seem to suggest GNG is met. GNG should not be dismissed merely because the nominator is not impressed that, I dunno, she didn't do a 4-minute mile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator will point out that the article at the time of nomination had three books, two newspaper articles, and one website as sources. Regarding those books: the nominator has done some checking. The book by Jose Petrick, which the nominator has viewed, is perhaps a secondary source but as a more encyclopedic book about the town is more like a tertiary source. The portion that the nominator has viewed does not cite sources. It reads almost as a vanity book; the nominator can elaborate on its tone and content if you like. The book Through Chinese eyes : the Chinese experience in the Northern Territory 1874-2004, is described as a "personal narrative" and thus appears to be a primary source rather than a secondary source as the GNG calls for. Those two books are self-published: the author's name is the publisher. Self-published local history books can be high-quality sources of information, but they can also be less than that. Alice Springs : from singing wire to iconic outback town, published by Wakefield Press, may be the best reliable secondary source of the bunch. Finally, the nominator points out that the word "appears" does not convey the level of coverage as "is featured" or "is detailed"... passing mentions are appearances. Many of our ancestors appear in newspaper articles, history books, ship manifests, war records, etc. and most are not worthy of biographical articles. The nominator, actually interested in the life story of the subject, does not require a feat of physical fitness to prove worthiness; the nominator confesses to looking for verbs, nouns, and adjectives in assessing articles. The nominator looked for but did not find a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story here, but hopes to see more improvements to the article as the discussion continues. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You still appear to believe that, to be notable, an article must convince you that the subject has accomplished something of significance ("a notable-enough-for-Wikipedia story"), and not merely been covered in sources that are sufficiently reliable, in-depth, and independent. Can you perhaps point to where in our guidelines or policy that opinion is based? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I do not believe that significant accomplishments are it. The "notable-enough" comment refers to that notability is only presumed when the GNG is met, and that further discussion may take place ("A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article"). WP:DIRECTORY was one concern when I nominated the article. And I had called the sources into question, as I did not find enough of them to be secondary and sufficiently in-depth, as I outlined above.      The article is already much improved with more sources. Good. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a new section called Sources, with three Google Books that have multiple pages on Gloria Lee, one of which has a chapter on her. Because one can only see part of the multiple pages, they have not been added them to the References section. If there is a better name for the section than Sources, please feel free to change it, but do keep the books in the article. Her life is well documented. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So you did not use any of them as sources in your writing? If you did not, I believe the correct name for the section is "Further reading." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DiamondRemley39 - It seems a proper WP:BEFORE may not have been conducted before nominating the page for deletion. She clearly meets notability, there are many verifiable reliable sources that were not difficult to find. When searching for women, it's advisable to search under variations of her name, esp. if she has several last names due to marriages or other name changes, as in this case. The article simply needed improvement not deletion. Also, please sign your nomination, and it is policy suggested to inform the original page creator with a notice on their talk page. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Netherzone, Thank you for conducting this research. It now appears that the subject meets notability. Mightn't you consider that we don't all have the same access to or knowledge of the same resources? I found little--not enough to dissuade the nomination--when I researched her under the names listed at the time. You just may have access to or know about different places to find information than I. You did a good job, and work like yours is why this process works so well in getting articles to swim or sink. But this is moot now. The subject's notability is established and she is better written up as an individual beyond her roles of daughter, wife, mother, and extended family member. I thank you. Pardon me for failing to sign my nomination. I have amended it now. One more thing: You are incorrect that it is policy to inform the original page creator. It is, rather, an optional courtesy. Perhaps you have it confused the policy with that of proposed deletion. See you around. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator in light of new information, sources, and editing. See comments above. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless John Pack Lambert also wants to change his opinion, I think we need to let the AfD carry on to its conclusion: an early close based on a withdrawal is only possible when there are no other delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, especially now with all the improvements made and sources added (thanks :)), article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Although some WP:GNG notability was visible even in the nominated version, I think it is much more clear now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Nice article. Bearian (talk)


 * 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.