Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Brown (criminal)


 * 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 as a result of the sources found. Wizardman 14:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Brown (criminal)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Aside from having a career tthat spanned several yaers, there seems to be nothing notable about this criminal. In fact the crimes described in the article appear to be extremely mundane. A ni  Mate  01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Deleteabsolutely not notable.Is this how 2.5M is achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is really no need to include articles for every small-time criminal there ever was. This one is completely non-notable.Wikigonish (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What next? Litterbugs and jaywalkers? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete'. There seem to be a few uses of her as an example of an "incorrigible" criminal, but not as a notable one (other than to various urban police departments). --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't see how this is notable, unless sources can be found that are primarily devoted to her. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and close per WP:SNOW - this is utterly un-notable, as far as I can see. Brilliantine (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral till I have time to look properly at new sources. Brilliantine (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Having looked at new sources, I would suggest they convey verifiability but not notability. I would say this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Brilliantine (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I cannot offer a sensible vote as i do not have access to all of the sources now mentioned. Brilliantine (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The new sources still do nothing to assert her notability, other than discussing her still rather petty crimes. A  ni  Mate  23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and speedy close - I'm shivering!   Ase ' nine ' '' 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to the article, it seems that her criminal career was mentioned in several independent, published sources, which suggests that she is notable and the report of her career verifiable.  Nor is she notable only in connection with a single incident: she was a notorious thief for more than fifty years.  Notability by our standards does not fade with the passage of time; if she was mentioned in several books in the 1920s she's still notable now.  I don't see any policy this article fails. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete - I don't have copies of any of the references in the article but many books contain biographical information about non-notable people - often so the reader gets a feel for what it was like to be an "ordinary" person. Jll (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Enough references found in enough books to convince me that she is notable! Jll (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis of Tlön --  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow, what a woman! Seriously, the article passes WP:RS and WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I added 2 refs from 1884 New York Times articles, One gives substantial coverage to her 50 year career as a criminal. The reported book citations are harder to track down, but unless they are mere directory listings, would in combination with the main NY Times article, satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in the nature of criminal court proceedings sections of local/regional papers to contain summaries of minor criminals and their crimes (and the policemen who arrest them), and these papers generally to contain the names of local people. For example, the policeman who arrested her in one of the reports, Thomas Adams, gets even more mentions over the years. I get five NY Times articles using Google with "detective thomas adams" site:nytimes.com, five more with "detective sergeant thomas adams" site:nytimes.com (including the unusual circumstances of the birth of his daughter), two more with "detective thomas f adams" site:nytimes.com and another one with "detective sergeant thomas f adams" site:nytimes.com. I may have by chance hit upon the most notable policeman in 19th Century New York, but I don't think so - the arresting officer in the other report gets five hits with "detective sergeant lanthier" site:nytimes.com and fourteen with "detective lanthier" site:nytimes.com. Jll (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've personally met people who are lazy enough to give up employment in exchange for a lifetime of petty theft. Nothing encyclopedic about that. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So only people you respect are notable? Heh. --Rividian (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairly certain he's saying career petty theft doesn't equal encyclopedic content. A  ni  Mate  23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Career petty thieves are not notable per se. However, those that make it into books on the subject probably are. If the citations check out, and if mention is more than a passing remark, she does pass significant coverage by third parties and is notable. And as crime has an encyclopedia article, Swik is not correct in saying it is unencyclopedic.Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in multiple reliable sources. I should note that the delete !vote immediately above mine is not a valid reason for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above keeps and sources. Here's another one: Our Rival, the Rascal: A Faithful Portrayal of the Conflict Between the Criminals of this Age and the Defenders of Society, the Police  Great title.John Z (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. She probably wouldn't achieve notability nowadays, but she certainly seems to have back then.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 13 August 2008
 * Keep Historical figure of some note, as proven by the references. The most prominent petty thief in a city can be notable in her profession. 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)    Dloh  cierekim  16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Several of the "delete" !votes are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "So and sos are inherently nonnotable", ignoring the 168 word article about her long criminal career in the 1884 NY Times and the four book references.The one JohnZ presents  is definitely substantial coverage, stating that her face is familiar to detectives of every large country in the U.S. I have now located a copy of the 1929 "Gangs of New York" and will check it when I get hands on it for the extent of coverage. Per Google Book Search, under her alias "Mother Hubbard" she is discussed in "The American Way of Crime" (1980) By Frank Browning and, John Gerassi," page 283 along with her criminal associate Black Lena Kleinschmidt. She is mentioned in  "Women, Crime, and Justice" (1980), by Susan K. Datesman, Frank R. Scarpitti, page 193, in "The Professional Fence" (1974) by Carl B. Klockars, page 176, and in "Crime and justice: V.1" (1977) by Leon Radzinowicz and Marvin E. Wolfgang,  Page 312. Edison (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * She does crop up in a lot of books! I have changed my opinion to keep. Jll (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Srong keep Notable, with enough coverage by reliable, verifiable sources.  Dloh  cierekim  14:48, 15 August 2008 (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.