Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillie Rose Ernst


 * 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. Alex ShihTalk 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Lillie Rose Ernst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While I fully support the idea of us having more articles on here-to-fore unknown women on Wikipedia, I am not certain this individual qualifies as notable per our criteria. The references given are either not independent of the subject (Washington U.), are blogs without editorial oversight, or are trivial mentions in passing (being a member of this or that board or organization). Or are obituaries, which are also considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. What this article needs is a reference to a newspaper or book article that discusses the subject in depth— if that cannot be found, then I don't think we can justify hosting the article based only on the fact that she should perhaps be notable. (A Google Books search turned up so empty it made my head spin! I get more hits than she does!  And I am not notable). KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC) KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, KDS4444 said: "A Google Books search turned up so empty it made my head spin", I have just made a seach on Google Books and the first 4 results are (https://www.google.it/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=lillie+rose+ernst):
 * In Her Place: A Guide to St. Louis Women's History - Page 180, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1883982308, Katharine T. Corbett - 1999: Lillie. Rose. Ernst. When she elected to not marry, Lillie R. Ernst threatened a social order based around patriarchal families and an economic order based on the primacy of men's work. Ernst, an accomplished educator and administrator ...
 * Gay and Lesbian St. Louis: - Page 14, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1467115924, Steven Louis Brawley and the St. Louis LGBT History Project - 2016: lillie rOse ernst. This esteemed St. Louis educator was one of the first women to graduate from Washington University. After graduating in 1892, Ernst embarked on a lifelong teaching career at Central High School. She never married, and it is ...
 * Sara Teasdale: Woman and Poet - Page 21, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=087049595X, William Drake - 1989: One of the most prominent teachers in the city's public schools, Miss Lillie Rose Ernst, a botanist and member of the Wednesday Club, also lent her patronage to the Potters and attended many of their meetings. Formidable in her starched ...
 * Women in the arts: eccentric essays in music, visual arts and literature, https://books.google.it/books?id=ElRKAQAAIAAJ, Barbara Harback, ‎Diane H. Touliatos-Banker, ‎Diane Touliatos-Miles - 2010: ... Lillie Rose Ernst, a botany teacher from Central High School whom the girls admired tremendously.17 Highly accomplished and educated, Ernst was dedicated to social causes and became the first female Assistant Superintendent of ...
 * So your point does not stand. Moreover you said the source is only WU. That is not true, the sources provided are:
 * Missouri History Museum
 * Saint Louis LGBT History Project
 * Mound City of the Mississippi a St. Louis History
 * The tag should be removed.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I suspect you may not have very carefully looked through the sources before nominating this, especially considering you nominated for deletion (assuming you saw it the second it was created) all of 15 minutes after it was started.
 * Sources from a university museum don't really fail the independence test in the same way that other sources might. They're affiliated with a special interest in areas relating to the university, but they are an educational institution at the base of it.
 * The only "blog" I'm seeing is this one, which is not "some guy's blog", but is the official museum blog, and therefore presumably subjected to some level of editorial oversight if someone decides to just go off the reservation and write some off-the-wall crap and stamp the museum's name on it.
 * Of course you get more hits; you live in the 21st Century, and while this person lived a while ago, they died in 1943, meaning that they are not old enough for works about them to have conclusively fallen into the public domain (like someone who died in 1850, and was written about following their death). This subject existed in basically the worst time period for our purposes, before the internet but too recently to have been dumped onto the internet indiscriminately because they haven't passed the "intellectual property event horizon" of 1923.
 * This book (already in the article), commits a full two pages to the subject, and that's just what's available in the preview (my arch nemesis, works too new to be in the public domain). Timothy Joseph Wood  12:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep; in fact, speedy keep, and recommend immediate nominator withdrawal. Subject has been well-covered in published academic research:, , , , , etc. On edit: Although I would suggest that User:Elisa.rolle carefully reads WP:CANVAS :)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, sorry I did not know of this policy, and I was sort of struck by the reason provided for the deletion, cause they were totally against what I learnt, i.e. subject notable for personal achievements, subject covered in multiple sources, references provided for each and single point in the article... I was just trying to understand why it was tagged for deletion and asked opinion to the one people that had "worked" the article just minutes before and help to one editor I know could help me in the "women" biography field.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * S'alright, it should've been pointed out to you before now. There's no harm in notifying people, but thenotices themselves should be neutrally phrased, and preferably directed at a cross-section of editorial opinion. Take care! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  12:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , several editors have discussed canvassing with . In this case, I think that Elisa was not phrasing things neutrally because she was truly upset. Here is the request to me to take a look at the article, which is neutrally phrased. And here is the request for help after the article was nominated for deletion around 10 minutes later. is new to article creation and has faced some growing pains in this area so her consternation, I think, was completely understandable. I have cautioned Elisa not to panic and to trust in the process so that she can avoid the perception that she is canvassing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of reason why we should change the name to Articles for Discussion. I've actually started a thread about this twice and closed the window because... it may or may not be a complete shit storm to get through. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I love this idea! I suspect there would be more support for it than you realize. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I was asked to evaluate the file for WiR. Minutes later, the creator advised the article had been nominated for deletion, which does not appear to be canvasing IMO; however in the effort of full disclosure, I am disclosing. Clearly notable, as has been covered by all the participants above. The "routine" obituary, is anything but routine, as it appeared the The Auk, a peer reviewed scientific journal. Sufficient reliable sources over time easily establish GNG.,  SusunW (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's fine; I was referring to something else- less ambiguous, shall we say. No problem. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * de nada. Would just rather err on the side of caution and make the disclosure. I would have done so whether you had commented on canvassing or not, simply because the timing of the nomination was so quick, that there was not even sufficient time for feedback before it was at AfD. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per other editor's reasoning. --Jennica ✿ / talk 07:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are obviously many reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you, MShabazz, what does it mean Snow keep?--Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (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.