Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty May Ellis


 * 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 of the discussion was Keep, consensus in this AfD appears to be sufficient enough not to require a relisting (plus this AfD is already long enough). Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Change to Delete, in light of additional information provided in the deletion review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What additional information? Wjhonson 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing Admin Please relist rather than closing. In my view this is unverifiable - it's based on material in the possession of one editor and which may (or may not) exist in two Libraries. I'm not questioning the editor's good faith, but this is way beyond normal Wikipedia standards for verifiability. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk   23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one said verifiability had to be simple. As I've stated many times, there are people you just can't easily verify unless you go to the source.  People of local notability are almost always like this.  And people of historical local notable are even worse.  Wjhonson 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis
I'm sorry for the trouble the author took in creating this page, but the only claim to fame for Kitty is that she was a diarist, and the only place these diaries (well, two of them) are available is Wikisource. So there is no fame, no notability, and hance no place in Wikipedia. Fram 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. It appears you've made your judgement solely on the basis of your own personal knowledge and google abilities.  However many people of note do not show up in google simply because no biography has yet published online anything relevant.  The mere fact that you cannot find the person online is not a sufficient reason to delete. Wjhonson 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable.  Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten.  She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview.  She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland...  The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals. Wjhonson 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are the journals published?  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but as long as no more work is done on her diaries (publication, use in historical studies (which gets published in turn), ...), she fails WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:NOR. Fram 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you get the prize for the most impatient person on wikipedia :) As you can plainly see I'm transcribing the journals day-by-day for the last week or so.  So maybe you could hold off a bit ?  The journals have been published in local newspapers and history books.  Sorry those aren't on google, but she is a quite a notable person locally.  That should be sufficient. Wjhonson 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which books? Gazpacho 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * History of Snohomish County, J Daniels, 1962. Privately printed.
 * Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett.
 * Snohomish Tribune, various dates from 1956 to 1972.


 * Keep, I accept the author's claim of notability. Gazpacho 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is less than two weeks old and is being constructively edited, with the appropriate sources being transcribed as we speak. Noms, please be more patient, especially for topics more than fifty years old. It can take time to do the research. Captainktainer * Talk 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability is an issue - Google isn't the be-all and end-all, but the above are difficult to verify! Books entitled History of Snohomish County exist but none I can find by Daniels.  I can find no reference to Clearview, founders and pioneers.  Snohomish Tribune exists but the online version  is just a Classifieds.  So I don't feel any of the above meet normal wiki verifiability  standards.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They're difficult to verify, but not impossible. The Snohomish Tribune, for example, will be available on microfilm/microfiche; someone in Snohomish County could go to the library and verify the information. The "History of Snohomish County" book, being that it was privately printed, I would agree is suspect, but I'm going to assume that the book exists for now, especially given that the article is barely over a week old. The solution to having doubts that are reasonable but not beyond a shadow of a doubt related to a source is to ask for verification. This is a more appropriate way to handle this article, not to run to AfD within seven or eight days. Captainktainer * Talk 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the comment. What exactly are you trying to verify?  The statements of fact are cited to each journal page where the statement is made.  Or are you saying that you're only trying to verify whether or not the journals (or portions thereof) have been previously published ?  An autobiography is sufficient proof for the facts of the person that they themselves wrote obviously, of their own life. Wjhonson 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is verifying that the books in question exist. They aren't found referenced anywhere on Google, and I couldn't find them in the Library of Congress or in the online catalogs of the local libraries, and they aren't particularly well-known, so there's some doubt as to whether the books you mentioned exist. Personally, I doubt that you would make up books, but I think the point being made is that without an ability to check the references- any libraries where they can be checked out, etc.- it's hard to confirm the information. But, quite honestly, this isn't a discussion that we should be having on AfD about an article that is being actively edited and productively contributed to, and that asserts the subject's notability. Captainktainer * Talk 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My question is, what is the point of asking about the books? To verify what exactly? The statement was "about verifiability".  I can tell you the complete contents of the article are not in the books published.  Many of the events are in the journals which are cited and can be read online to see for yourself what they say.  Is the person suggesting that journals published in wikisource are not sources ? Wjhonson 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's the point. From my reading of the poster's comments, the question is whether the journals are accurate, and he's not convinced that the sources quoted are sufficient to establish the reality of the journals. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the idea. Captainktainer * Talk 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then this has gone from ridiculous to downright looney. A person's journals are sufficient to establish what they said.  Every biography on here is subject to scrutiny to its *facts* and that is independent of what is or is not said.  If there is only one source for the biography then the person is going to have to do research to determine its validity.  But the simple *belief* that it *may* not be valid, is insufficient to discard the statments that are made.  There are thousands of articles in wikipedia that have no sources *what*soever, perhaps those would be a better candidate for this kind of Reductio ad absurdum  (I got so high falutin that I lost my ability to spell ;). Wjhonson 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh as to your comment about not being able to find the History of Snohomish book I referred to, the copy I have has no ISBN number and doesn't even have a copyright statment for that matter. Its a printed work, but is bound soft-cover, not really what you'd called a high-quality work, but I'm sure they sold a grand-total of perhaps 500 copies. It's not like Snohomish is a huge metropolis :0 Wjhonson 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And the Clearview work isn't even a 'book' per se, its more like a phamplet, probably put together by a local history society or genealogical society (although not so marked). Also no ISBN number and stapled not bound.  That's the kind of history books you get in little, dinky towns. Wjhonson 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't personally doubt that these exist, but basic scolarship requires that an independent check confirm their existence. I'd go to my local library to look them up, but that's obviously not possible.  So where can physical copies of these works be found which will allow hypothetical Wikipedia representatives visit and confirm, first their existence, and, secondly, the notability of their contents?  And I feel strongly this is a discussion we not only  should be having, but would be negligent not to have!   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk


 * There is a library in the city of Snohomish. It's a small town of perhaps 3,000 so it may not be open very often.  I've never been to it.  There is a larger library in Everett which *may* have copies of these.  I have not personally checked either one to be sure. Wjhonson 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You give as arguments: ''Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable. Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten. She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview. She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland... The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals.'' Why is a short lived post office important? How is she a reliable witness? Until her diaries are the source of historical works of some importance, she is just an anecdote. Fram 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't mean that the author of the article has made up the diaries (although it would be hard to show either way): but why is having made diaries important? The diaries are unpublished, unverified (i.e. is what she writes correct? Important), unstudied, and unreferenced. There is no reason at all that this person merits an encyclopedic article at this moment in time. She has had no importance at all, has made no impact on anything, has made no revelations that have been the basis for serious scientific studies, has no literary merit, ... That an article is truthful, thorough, wikified, ... does not mean that it belongs here. As the article states, her only claim to fame is that she has written diaries (lots of them). So? How does that meet WP:BIO?


 * You're saying, if someone writes a work, say the Gospel of Judas. That work is not itself important *until* it is referenced by someone else? And you're saying if wikisource accepts a work that that itself does not make the person who wrote it an author who deserves encyclopaedic representation?  I find those two positions untenable.  I don't think very many people are going to be flocking to that banner. Wjhonson 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikisource accepts" has about the same value as "Wikipedia accepts". The texts have not been challenged on WIkipedia, but that does not mean that they fit the inclusion criteria very well: "Most texts should be published in a medium that includes peer review, such as a newspaper or published book; a Usenet posting or blog entry does not qualify.". These diaries don't belong in that category, do they? Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me quote Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." Wjhonson 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I just quote the first text line of WP:V (a policy, not a guideline): "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.". This article fails this (wrt the "claim of fame", that the peson existed is verifiable but not important), and is thus against policy. Then the only option is to delete the article. I repeat, the notable part of the article is the unverifible part of the article as defined by Wikipedia policy. Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This person's diaries give us some insight into history --rogerd 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable does not mean by a peer-reviewed source. It only means that there is a source. Wikisource is a valid source for establishing verifiability. And I have already posted other sources which you admitted were veriable, albeit perhaps not *simple*. But verifiability does not stand on what is simple, only on what is possible. If you wish to go to Snohomish and visit the library you could probably verify that this person existed. The article itself also has links, to places other than the journals, which do verify certain events in the person's life. A biography of just *public records* would be fairly dry, every biography has statements writen from first-hand knowledge of actors associated with the person. Those statements outside of their primary, published venue, are not *verifiable* in the strict sense that you wish to employ here. The notes of the author are elements to verify the details of the biography and those notes, are not usually published themselves. Only the result of the research is published.

Again, the limitations in writing Autobiographies do not apply to Biographies, even if those biographies are writen from statements made by the subject themselves. The elements of this life are not gradiose, bizarre or suspect. They are merely notable. So the majority of your case dissolves from a lack of conflict. Wjhonson 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, it sounds like has a lot invested in this article, and therefore the lines of WP:OR are being blurred. Is it appropriate for someone transcribing diaries (that are not currently published) to start an wikipedia article on the same topic? Wikipedia cannot be a place to publish primary sources, and we cannot be the first place to write on a topic. We also get into WP:RS issues. In all honesty, this sounds like genealogy work being published for the first time here. There is a fine line between notable history and genealogy, but WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including genealogy entries. This article to me sounds like something more appropriate for User:Sam Francis/Genealogy wiki or a similar project, NOT wikipedia. But like I said there is a fine line.--Andrew c 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not creating original statments of facts from my own personal experience or efforts. I am transcribing a diary in which those statements appear.  That is not original research. You could just as well say that transcribing a newspaper is original research which is isn't.  Just like transcribing public records, regardless of the amount of time you expend, its not original research, its a mechanical representation of facts in an alternative media.  There is no artistic effort involved.  Your next objection, wikipedia is not being used to publish primary sources.  The primary source is where it should be, on wikisource.  It has been accepted there, which is where primary sources go.  Your next objection, this is not the first time that Kitty May Ellis has been writen about as I've stated above.  She is obscure that is true, she is not googleable that is true.  The same was true for my article on Frantz Hunt Coe, however he is notable as well.  Your next objection, this is not genealogy, it is biography.  She is notable not for her family, but for herself.  Hopefully that addresses all your concerns. Wjhonson 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's problematic using something only published at wikisource as a source per WP:RS and WP:V. If this person was reported on in newspapers and such, then your job is to summarize those sources. Instead, it looks like you are cherry picking information at your whim from the unpublished, unreliable source that you are transcribing (which is why it goes into the realm of WP:OR). Transcribing isn't OR, but basing a wikipedia entry off that work MAY be OR. You should probably not use the diary as a source, or at least keep its use down to a bare minimum (right now it seems like it is the bulk of the article, also, you may want to use the format found int WP:CITE and cite.php in regard to intext citations.) Franz Hunt Coe appears to be deleted, so if this is the case, there is precedent on wikipedia to NOT include these sort of articles. I urge you to read your article. It is not encyclopedic. It reads as a family history, not an encyclopedia article. Take for instance the 2nd paragraph in early life. Do you seriously consider that good writings? In 1870 they are in Lincoln, Nebraska. In 1876 Andrew applied for and received a Civil War Pension. By Sep 1879 they were living at Tarkio, Missouri. They left Takio about Mar 1883 and went by "team and wagon" arriving in Colville, Stevens Co, Washington on July 3rd 1883[4]. Soon they had moved to Spokane Falls, Washington or the vicinity,. Can you point to a features or good article on wikipedia that has a similar format? This article needs some major editing, if it is kept.--Andrew c 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an awful lot of assumptions for one paragraph. Let me just tackle your main one first.  You are assuming that the biography is gleaned simply from the journals.  That is false.  The citations to the journals are to show where she states the things that were *already known* from other sources.  Of course the underlying original source in all cases, is... herself.  So the entire premise falls to pieces.  As in almost every biography, the most primitive, underlying source for most statements is the person.  Other documents can be used to back up what they say about certain things that were recorded elsewhere, but not in all cases.  "President Clinton says he likes potatoes." I mean who the heck cares if it's true or not.  He said it, it goes into his biography.  It's his quote.  Whether it's true isn't going to change a thing.  "President Clinton says he was born in September".  May be true.  You can verify it by looking at his birth certificate.  But his birth certificate isn't going to say he likes potatoes.  And if you ask his mother, that's just another source, equally failable.


 * The major problem in this particular biography is that people are moaning that it's HARD to verify because it's not online. But it is verifiable, it's just not easy to do so.  I mispelled Frantz Hunt Coe so it wasn't deleted, which destroys another pin in your argument.  History will thank me for digging up obscure but once famous people.  And finally be bold, if you think my writing sucks, rewrite the paragraph to make it flow more smoothly, without loss of information of course.  And my ref style is my choice.  There are several styles in existence here, not everyone uses the same type, I didn't wish to clutter the article with 42 footnotes. This isn't paper and I don't really see the point. Wjhonson 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Frantz Hunt Coe was (speedy) deleted, and is since recreated. The article still does not assert why he is a "prominent physician", but I'll let it be for now. My main reason for putting this up for deletion is not that the existance and facts of the life of Ellis are hard to verify, but that her claim to fame is hard to verify (not that she has written a diary, but that any info in it is important for historians). For now, we have only your word that her writings have historical importance, and none of her writings have been checked by historians. As far as we know, they may be delusions, misremembered facts, ... or a mixture of all of these. For now, niether her life nor her diaries have any importance, no studies based on them or studies using them as a source have been published, the diaries themselves have not been published by a real publisher, ... Let me again post the first line of WP:V: the policy: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.". This article does not meet this policy, and hence should be deleted. Wikisource is not a reputable publisher. Fram 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure in your view, schools get named for people of no particular renown. The fact that Frantz had a school named after him, that fact alone, is enough to make him notable.  Not even counting the other things he was famous for in his life.  As for the journals, as I have mentioned several times now.  They have been published.  And no you don't have just my word that they have historical importance, you have the contents of the journals themselves.  Go read them.  The vast majority of her writing is quotes from the newspapers, so I think you'd be awfully hard pressed to say those haven't been previously published or aren't reliable sources.  At any rate this is going nowhere.  There are enough votes to keep the articles.  There is no overwhelming consensus. Wjhonson 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't have it both ways: if the vast majority of her writing is quotes from newspapers, then her diary is not a possible primary source for historians, and isn't notable. If it is not a collection of quotes, then it has to be verified by historians, to see if her writings are truthful and reliable. Until then, she fails WP:V. Fram 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That statement only proves that you haven't even read any of the journals at all. So you're not arguing about this case.  You're arguing some hypothetical which doesn't exist.  A source doesn't have to be primary to be useful.  And sources don't have to be "verified by historians" good grief.  It's as if you have no idea how biographies are even constructed.  Do you really think that newspapers articles you read every day are "verified by historians" ?  Yes you want to set this incredibly high bar for anything you don't like. Why waste everyone's time? Wjhonson 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, no. Either she is inherently notable (i.e. not because of the diaries), and the diaries provide a biography. But she isn't. Or she is notable because her diaries are historically interesting and provide a valuable source. But now you have said that they don't do that either. So what exactly is the reason Wikipedia should have an article about her? Fram 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * She is notable because of her life experiences. And if you're conceding that diaries are historically interesting, than that along makes the author interesting as well.  And I did not say the diaries don't provide a valuable source.  They do, in fact, provide a valuable source, to many events.  Primary in some cases, secondary in some cases.  You're going in circles. Wjhonson 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent. Three things to keep in mind. Diaries CAN have historical significance, but not every single diary is historically significant. Next, Afd is not a vote. The most votes do not always win. If the arguments are compelling enough to to closing editor, they may take whatever action they feel is most appropriate, considering wikipedia policy and general consensus (not simply tallying votes). Secondly, you keep scolding us about how "biographies are constructed", and we keep scolding you about how encyclopedias are written. Seriously, I think you are using the wrong project to publish your "biography". Listing the places someone of questionable notability lived does not belong in an encyclopedia. You should make the article consice, focusing in on the aspects that make the individual notable, not relaying boring, unecnyclopedic, trivial, biographical information. If you honestly want me to edit the article, I will, but I'd probably delete most of the trivial content. Is that acceptable to you?--Andrew c 21:40, 12 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.