Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Kardash


 * 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 (NAC) Substantial improvements have been made during this AfD, which have been recognized in the later !votes, allowing a clear "keep" outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Mary Kardash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable primarily as a school board trustee, and as a non-winning candidate for election to higher office. Neither of these is a claim that satisfies WP:NPOL, and the lack of sourcing vitiates a WP:GNG claim as well. In truth, I would have speedied or prodded this — except that it's somehow survived like this since 2005. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete . Kind of surprising it's survived for 10 years without any sources. Fails GNG and NPOL pretty clearly. I would think this qualifies for A7 speedy delete. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering after all the work done on the article by Bondegezou. Almost everything is cited now, many to books or articles, and the article is fairly substantial. I think this sounds like it would meet the notability guidelines now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Books throws up some relevant stuff, e.g. (calls her "prominent") and mentioned in, , , ,  and . Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Being "mentioned in" one or more sources is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG, if those mentions are all just glancing namechecks of her existence. She has to be substantively a significant subject of the source for it to count — which doesn't mean the entire book has to be a biography of her, but it does mean there has to be a lot more than just a passing reference to her mere existence. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the links I gave (and those are only what I found on a quick search) and I think in the way they talk about this person, they demonstrate notability. People who did notable things in the 1970s are at a disadvantage compared to people doing notable things today because it's harder to find the material about them, but if someone is repeatedly turning up in so many books, it looks to me like they pass WP:GNG. The article certainly needs work because there's more in those sources than in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have direct access to four databases of historical Canadian newspaper coverage that go back that far or farther, and she just generates fairly trivial passing mentions, not substantive coverage, in all of those too. And nothing in the article suggests that she ever did anything that would be expected to get even a contemporary figure into an encyclopedia, either — even a school board trustee in the 2010s, who Googles way more easily and doesn't at all require accessing databases of historical media coverage, still doesn't get an article just for being a school board trustee, nor does an unelected political candidate get an article just for being an unelected political candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, I'll try to put more work into it and would appreciate any help from those databases. Ta. Bondegezou (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Help isn't going to be provided by any of those databases — as I already noted, I've already run her through all four of them, and she generates just trivial namechecks of her existence in coverage of other topics, not substantive coverage of anything that would constitute a notability claim in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, do a search for "Mary Kardash" + "communist" in Google Books and there's pages and pages of stuff. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bearcat. These links are pretty much the definition of trivial mentions. And these are books exactly about her area, so if she was notable I would expect she'd be discussed more in them. I'm just not sure how we can write a reliably sourced article with only a few sentences in various books (not to mention some of these suffer from reliability problems). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search throws up plenty too. She seems sufficiently discussed to me. Several mentions describe her as "prominent". She wasn't just any school board trustee. She was a significant Canadian communist, as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bearcat makes a good argument regarding the overall non-significance of this subject.ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I've done some work expanding the article. If the AfD ends in a delete decision, please merge content into William Kardash. Bondegezou (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, while trivial mentions aren't useful for writing an article if there are only one or two available, mounds and mounds of trivial mentions add up to "depth of coverage" and indicate notability. Considering that she's a woman in the early 20th century, that's a lot of coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing mounds and mounds though, I'm only seeing a handful. And they all say pretty much the same thing: that she was a communist in the 20th century. Agree that this is a borderline case so I'd definitely reconsider if more sourcing is presented. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, different sources say different things: they don't all say the same thing. I've added article content now about her youth, activity in the 1940s, marriage, school board elections, activity as an educational campaigner, controversy around Ukrainian history views, later activity, and the institution named after her. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Took another look, you've done some good work and I'm not sure this should be deleted. I'm withdrawing my !vote for now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -There are enough reliable sources listed to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Bondegezou. Great job with the article! Martinogk (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only did Bondegezou find sources that establishes notability they've actually added them! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:35, 28 November 2015 (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.