Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Poovey


 * 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. Consensus that multiple, independent sources exist establishing notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

James Poovey
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article does not follow Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. Specifically, WP:SINGLEEVENT, as there is no other information surrounding this individual despite the single event he is described in. It also does not follow WP:NBASIC, as the cited articles are related by subject, and the author of Reference 2 is simply retelling Isaac T. Hooper's own experience, from his published works. Uncanniey (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC) *Keep Seems notable for a series of connected events that took places over a period of years. There is sustained coverage of events, even hundreds of years later. CT55555 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Score out my initial vote as I find Uncle G's argument convincing. Currently reflecting. CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe this to be a series of connected events. The Perseus Digital Library reference is a direct quote from Isaac T. Hoopers original work, The first reference is great for giving historical context, but doesn't mention Poovey once, and the final refence is to the bible quote. So the only secondary source describing Poovey is Isaac T. Hooper's writing, which while accessed from two separates sources, is not multiple coverages. Uncanniey (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator, it's quite unconventional for you to also vote.
 * I am struggling to understand how you see this as one event. Here are some events in the article:
 * Aged 33, teaching himself to read
 * Reaching conclusion that bible prohibited slavery
 * Making proposition to Coates, later making another
 * Escape/walking away
 * Issue of arrest warrent
 * Days later, arrest, then sentencing for 30 days
 * Prison visit and associated negotiation and refusal
 * Sentencing for 30 more days, followed by another negotiation and rejection
 * Leaving jail free
 * Even grouping some connected events, I consider this to be at least 9 connected, but separate events. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Important comment. The book that is a key source for this is a 1994 publication by Daniel E. Meaders. It was incorrectly presented until now as a book by Isaac T. Hoopers about Isaac T. Hoopers, which it is not. Source for this analysis: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429024122-36/james-poovey-1-daniel-meaders CT55555 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with Isaac Hopper's anecdotes has over the years been that one class of historian discounted them completely, and another class of historian believes them uncritically. The truth is in-between the two extremes.  Hopper did explicitly change facts and names in several cases.  Meaders's annotated collection of Hopper's Tales is one of the few works that addresses the historicity, but the entry for this person has just the one footnote giving its publication date in the National Anti-Slavery Standard and nothing else.  (In the actual book it is "James Poovey1", not "James Poovey 1" as on that WWW page.)  The problem is that notability requires multiple sources, and there just isn't a second source for this subject, nor any further corroboration from Meaders.  (Meaders discusses the problems of verifying the Tales, including that even purportedly independent contemporary newspaper reportage seems to have been in fact Hopper sending in his own stories.)  Hopper is the only person who ever wrote about this person, and almost half of what Hopper wrote in this Tale was about Hopper.  Given that Hopper isn't wholly reliable, having a second source to corroborate is a must, and the best shot at that doesn't provide one.  Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per points made by CT55555. Also, I added a reliable source I found, a journal, that I added to the article and which further shows notability and the extent the subject had to go through to free himself. You can read it here: Pennsylvania LEGACIES. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just Hopper recycled, not actually an independent second source. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A cursory look shows that the article's writer, Christopher Densmore, that you refer to as producing a "recycled" article was at the time of the writing curator of Friends Historical Library of Swarthmore College. The only thing cited in the article is the United States vs. Schooner Phoebe, U.S. District Court, Philadelphia, Oct. 1800. It does not site Hopper, making the article an independent second source. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That "cursory look" is the very problem. You just haven't thought about the sourcing here, or found anything other than someone recycling Hopper's Tale.  Swarthmore College is where (most of) Hopper's papers are held, and Densmore is using Hopper as the source.  Densmore even mentions the PAS explicitly, some of the archives of which is of course by Hopper.  Hopper is the single source for everything here.  It seems that you haven't actually read Meaders on this subject, as Meaders explains this very everything-comes-back-to-only-Hopper difficulty with Hopper's Tales, as I pointed out above.  Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/update I think the original claim of this being one event is not persuasive, but I think Uncle G is presenting a more convincing argument about this all coming from one source. I thought I had rebuffed that when I found the book by a second author, but Uncle G says that is also coming from the same source. At this point I'm convinced by Uncle G who appears to understand this better than me, but I have moved to strike out my vote, rather than change it, in case others present more information/analysis that changed my opinion further. I'm encouraging others to jump in here and to critique this comment. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Isaac Hopper was one of eight abolitionists featured by the the History channel for the work he did freeing slaves. Hopper was entrenched in the movement, which is why he documented a variety of freed slaves, including James Poovey's case, and the reason other historians and writers have repeated Hopper's work. Hopper was not a fiction writer. He documented anti-slavery, which is a valuable piece of history and the reason his work has been cited over the years. He was in the trenches with other abolitionists, doing the work to free slaves and to write down that work. That does not lessen the value of that work or his documentation of Poovey. It also does not mean, because Hopper's work has been cited by others, that Poovey is not a notable subject. Poovey's efforts to free himself were notable, and so Hopper documented it. I doubt this would be the only Wikipedia exception to a single-source article if this stands. It does not make Poovey and his history less notable. I would venture to say there are other journals and/or books besides Hopper's dating back to the abolition period that include Poovey's case, which would be on library bookshelves and unavailable and not searchable online. Also, I agree with CT55555 that this is not one event and the arguments pushing that it's one event are not persuasive. CT55555 broke down the arguments and credibly refuted them one by one. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances can we accept a single source? CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see enough for a stand-alone article, could very well be a subsection in a freedman/other slavery article perhaps. GSscholar, Jstor and Gbooks have zero hits on this fellow, I don't think it's that notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm leaning toward delete because I am not sure how verifiable this biography is as accurate history. All the information about James Poovey seems to stem ultimately from the writings of Isaac Hopper, who is himself the secondary hero of the story for refusing to make Poovey return to his master or extend his punishment. The master is identified only as "Mr. Coates" (Hopper did not provide his first name) and I don't see any evidence that later historians have identified Coates further, although there couldn't have been many blacksmiths named Coates in Southwark, Philadelphia in 1802. Even though Philadelphia, then as now, was one of the largest cities in the U.S., no evidence has been provided that there was any contemporary newspaper coverage, any reaction from slaveholders in Pennsylvania or elsewhere denouncing the situation, or any one else besides Hopper himself taking public notice of Poovey during his lifetime. That said, if I'm wrong and there are contemporary sources describing Poovey and how he became emancipated by civil disobedience, I would be inclined to change my recommendation towards keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Disputes with slaves typically weren't covered in newspapers, and no major crime was committed in this particular case. (He didn't even run away.) Curator Densmore of the Friends Historical Library at Swarthmore College is careful to state that Poovey was not legally emancipated; rather, he became "free" in practice. (Have changed the wording at the end, and revised throughout.) Interestingly, Hopper's original written account does not even cover the outcome of Coates's dispute with Poovey; it was Child who supplied the ending based on notes she compiled on how Hopper recounted this and other Tales of Oppression orally. (The Hopper and Child versions are different enough that I've tried to make it clear which parts she added.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to historians and future researchers trying to identify who "Coates" may have been: The Philadelphia Directory for 1802 lists A. Coates, shipwright; John Coates, shipwright; and Isaac Coates, shipwright. Based on my limited knowledge of early Philadelphia geography plus Google Maps, of these three men, the one with the address that looks most like historical Southwark is John Coates at 158 Swanson. The term “shipwright” is often associated with carpenters, but could also be used to mean blacksmiths, and in fact, in The Philadelphia Directory of 1803, the occupation for A. Coates is listed as “shipsmith” rather than “shipwright”. (Further note: In searches involving the letter "s", it often helps to substitute the letter "f" in these texts.) It makes sense that a blacksmith in 1802 Southwark, Philadelphia, would be involved in shipbuilding. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent, thoughtful discussion here from all angles, and very helpful in completely rewriting the article. The important thing is to make sure that what little information is available is presented in context. Please take a look. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have initially voted keep. I have been convinced to withdraw that vote and reflect. I have reflected. I am recasting my vote as keep again, I think Cielquiparle's careful explanation about how there are multiple independent sources here to be the key to my decision to conclude keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Cielquiparle's rewrite. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: With the finding of a second source in the rewrite, this passes WP:GNG and is no longer subject to WP:1R. TartarTorte 18:29, 17 May 2022 (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.