Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnie Stowe Puett


 * 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Minnie Stowe Puett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unprodded without rationale. Original prodding was due to A local level of notability, but does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Searches turned up very little. News only came up with the single hit on her papers; Newspapers - nothing; In books there are several hits, but nothing in depth (all to do with her History of Gaston County, and all appear to be from North Carolina; there's a mention of her book on Scholar, without a single citation; zero on highbeam and Jstor.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete article relies too heavily on primary sources (such as Puett's own book) and does not show that secondary sources have considered her notable. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and Wikipedia articles are not for publishing original research, which is what hunting down books published before the 2nd world war and gleaning biographical information published with them about the author amounts to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Google Books has some more citations of her work to make me think that it was probably significant at the time it was published to people who might be interested in Gaston County/the study of Belmont Abbey, and it could possibly be highly cited in that very narrow sub-field (not really sure how many academicians study the area, but I suspect it is low). That being said, I'm not convinced that she is notable. WP:GNG is not passed, and while Gbooks did have some information about her will and probate, the original research issue raised by JPL has merit. On the balance, I'd say delete, and if better sources can be brought, it can be recreated. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2016 (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.