Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination)


 * 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD G4 (repost). This is an identical copy of the article considered at Kitty May Ellis and deleted at AfD (as it was reinterpreted by DRV.) Since even the original closer agreed to overturn the original keep, appeals regarding this content belong at DRV. Note that G4 would not apply if this article contained substantial new content, but it does not. Xoloz 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to request mediation and arbitration as soon as I can figure out how. Meanwhile I'm protecting this page in my user space and by mirroring. Wjhonson 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis
After a lenghty discussion and a deletion review, the article Kitty May Ellis was very recently deleted. The creator now recreates the article under this slightly different name (and relinks all links he created from the old to the new one. Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis is the previous AfD, this is the deletion review, and the conclusion at Deletion review was "Kitty May Ellis - Keep closure overturned unanimously (including original closer), article deleted. 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ". I have tried a speedy delete as a repost, but the author objected, so here it is for AfD. Fram 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an outright lie. The article was relisted for further discussion (not by me).  That further discussion started on the 15th, and the review was closed *after* that date with no conclusion. Wjhonson 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article was not deleted by the original closer, but rather a vandal who has been consistently attacking this article. Wjhonson 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you accuse people of something, please say who you are accusing, and give us the username of that vandal that deleted the article. Better yet, contact the person, so he or she can give his or her version of the facts. Fram 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The history of the article as you know, has again vanished. So there is no way to know who, except I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it.  So what do you think?  Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP.  And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours.  The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 21:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a quick look at the deletion log (obtainable from a link on the edit page) of the deleted article reveals who deleted the article. Never mind. Since a redirect has been created, I believe the deletion log is no longer available. The deletion log is still available on the redirected article's talk page, however. Katr67 21:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion log page is generated. Try this. It says:


 * 15:24, July 18, 2006 deleted "Kitty May Ellis" (per DRV )
 * 16:55, July 14, 2006 deleted "Kitty May Ellis" (Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis)


 * --Calton | Talk 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I see one of the same persons who have viciously attacked this article in the past, running abour deleteing any reference to it." If you mean me, I see no evidence of my particular viciousness. If by "attack", you mean I deleted references to redlinks after what I considered a legitimate AfD and DRV, well, yes, I have done that. Katr67 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I have and will continue to revert your deletes, which serve no purpose except to censor the history of our region. This person is of historical note.  You may not see that, but others do. Wjhonson 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete, I guess I'll be the first vote then. Not-notable person. --Liface 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This person is one of if not *the* only narrative, first-person, source for many events in early Pacific Northwest history. The original article stated that quite clearly. Now I have to recreate that as well from memory... This is so stupid.  Do you people really have no life whatsoever to keep this up for three weeks? Wjhonson 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With "recreate from memory", you mean go back to the link you posted yourself and take the text of the previous article back from there? And the article and the AfD and review revealed quite clearly that most of her diaries are comments on newspaper articles (which means she isn't the only source), and furthermore that your argument does not really matter as long as she doesn't pass WP:V. Fram 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you ever get tired of constantly making things up to try to *win* your point? The point isn't whether "most" of the diaries are x y or z.  The point is that *some* of what she says, is very relevant to the history of this region.  So stop trying to spin this discussion by masking what's really going on here.  You refuse to even read the diaries to see what they say, but suddenly you're an expert on them?  And you constantly mischaracterize what's in the diaries, in the Afd, in the Review, and now here.  Anyone who reads them can see the value of the source.  And if she is valuable as a source, then she needs an article to explain WHO she was. That's pretty simple. Wjhonson 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll let the other editors judge the value and truthfullness of our contributions to this bickering. One thing truly is simple though: show, as per WP:V, that your claim that she is a valuable source falls under "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". If you can't do that, then the article fails WP:V and it should be deleted. Fram 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are again being intellectually dishonest. You know quite clearly that I've stated, now 14 times, that every statement in the article has been previously published.  You know quite clearly that I stated the sources.  Once again you try to mischaracterize the conversation. Wjhonson 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the problem. I'll try once more: in which publication by a reputable publisher has it been said that she is a valuable source? Fram 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. Oh I understand it quite clearly, as it's been discussed ad absurdum in these multiple attempts to wipe our history out. Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett. states :" Miss Ellis' diaries, should they ever be completely published promise to be a significant source for the history of the Pacific Northwest, she having come here in its infancy in 1883 and lived here her entire life. I here give a brief biography and a few pages of some example stories that were gleaned from just a few of her journals, and proofread by my publisher, but space cannot allow me to publish more". Wjhonson 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I fail to see anywhere any establishment of notability -- Whpq 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Her notability is stated. She is a source for local history. Wjhonson 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because sources are cited and I think she is notable as a historical person who wrote about some aspects of pioneer life. She has six sources about her. I think that's an indication of notability. Allisonmontgomery69 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and nearly a speedy as an attempt to re-create a deleted article). I recall that past commentors had some serious concerns about verification. I also think it may be difficult to verify some of the claims in the article. One such claim is that Ellis is "one of" or "the only" narrative, first-person sources of information for the Pacific Northwest. For example, one would have to comb the Hudson Bay Co. archives, various university libraries, and state and provincial archives to ensure that there are no such other first person accounts of life in what is now Washington and B.C. for this time period. I am also a bit concerned because the creator of this article verges on incivility (as can be seen in this discussion) and acts in a manner that is overly possessive. That, however, is not a reason for deletion, it's just a concern about the constant appearance and disappearance of this article. The creator of the article is not helping his cause by such behaviour. Agent 86 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per the DRV, most of the claims fail WP:V (unverifiable with reliable sources), figure fails WP:BIO as a result of that. Some of the sources don't seem to exist (particularly "Clearview, founders and pioneers"), and the ones that do aren't about her directly. I would recommend protecting this from re-creation if this gets deleted. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Logically, if Ellis is is "'one of'" or 'the only' narrative, first-person sources of information for the Pacific Northwest", historians covering the time and area should be leaning heavily on her material for their research -- yet mention of her seems notable by its complete absence from Google Books, Google Scholar, or even Worldcat. Delete on verifiability grounds and on making a suspect claim about her uniqueness as a diarist. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument fails logic. This source has not been easily available for historians to consult.  The only persons who have consulted the works are the sources I cited, whose works are local in scope, and limited in copies (to my knowledge at least). These is no requirement on wikipedia that a person be widely known already, outside their focal group.  In fact your argument fails the notability critieria, which states, in fact, the exact opposite. Wjhonson 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that if an artical has information that is useful for the research of our Ancestery ,Then it should be left alone ,I would like to heaar the reason for the deletion,It is such athrill when you can find out the History in ones family, There stiries are why we are here today .Sio It is so important to keep thes ethings available.and not hidden.Thank you for the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.67.217 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. By 1883 the Pacific Northwest should have been populated enough for other sources besides a girl's diary to exist. Although the article claims that she was a first-person source for "many newsworthy events," the article doesn't mention a single "newsworthy event," except perhaps claiming to have met Chief Joseph. All I see are lists of moves from town to town, jobs she took, and comments on her family members. Where are all these events she is supposed to have witnessed? --Groggy Dice 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if these rambunctious editors would relax, you'd get a chance to see them. As it is, they keep deleting the article *as I am creating it*.  It's going to be hard to prove notability, if every time I find another notable thing the article gets deleted again. And she wasn't a girl number one, and I think watching Tarkio get created from nothing is notable, since there is *no* other narrative source which claims that for one thing.  That isn't the sole notable thing, but again this comment proves another editor refuses to actually read the diaries.   Editors who vote, and yet refuse to acquaint themselves with the situation shouldn't be counted. Just like the one who claim "not verifiable" and yet refuse to attempt to verify.  Verifiability is not whether it's *easy*, its whether its *possible* and Kittie passes that test with flying colors. Wjhonson 04:10, 21 July 2006 (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.