Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Golding


 * 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The result was withdrawn Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Isabella Golding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.

Also, based on WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools] ), I would say that is a blatant lie, since Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being the first woman in the entire country to achieve the position of inspector of schools - effectively the highest career rung in the education field - is a big deal. It's an obvious claim to notability, which is why it's in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The Australian Dictionary of Biography is the source on Australian biography - it is authoritative, peer-reviewed, and highly selective - most Wikipedia biographies would not come close to their notability standard. The ADB entry cites their sources, which includes two books, amongst other things. She passes WP:N more than easily, and I find this nomination - 48 hours after a brand new editor created it as part of a specific effort to recruit new editors - abhorrent. This is a flagrant case of biting the newbies for no justifiable purpose. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , there's a reason the Draft process exists, so that users can demonstrate notability before being put up for deletion in the Article space. The creating user should have done so, but now that it's done I suppose the article will either be improved (demonstrating notability) or deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does demonstrate notability, and it would have been far better if any concerns had been raised with the editor rather than making their first interaction on Wikipedia be a deletion discussion on someone who should be pretty clearly notable. This would have allowed them to fix any issues and not be scared off first. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the ADB, she was just "an inspector". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I misread the type of inspector - she was in industrial relations, not education: nonetheless, holding a, for the times, significant public service role a full eight years before women's suffrage was, and is, a big deal, combined with her other positions in politics and public life. It's not hard to see why the ADB found her to be notable. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Augusta Zadow also held the significant public service role of inspector as well, she was also a woman, and did it before Isabella Golding. The ADB source also states the entry is a joint entry. The entry also covers mostly Annie Golding, with Isabella getting passing mentions. Annie Golding was the main leader of the organization, and Isabella Golding was "the first female inspector under the Early Closing Act 1899", and taught in public schools. The ADB also states that it "seems likely" that most of Annie Golding's knowledge came from Isabella, which seems like an inference, and therefore not supported by a secondary source. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Her obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald provides some more claims to notability, including stating she had much to do with the granting of suffrage in NSW. Her obituary in the Catholic Worker adds her prominent role in the anti-conscription campaign in WWI and her role in the founding of the RSPCA. This article and this article give some context for why her inspector role was significant. The Sydney Morning Herald reported on her retirement and provides some more information about her roles in the suffrage organisations. This is one of many articles reporting her anti-conscription speeches in great detail. Trove has nearly ten thousand hits for "Belle Golding", extensively documenting her life and activities. The coverage about her specifically is actually so significant I think you could write a featured article about her without too much strain. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable enough coverage for me, so withdraw. Never heard of "Trove" before, will check it out. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 2014 (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.