Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga T. Weber (2nd nomination)


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Olga T. Weber
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Many brief notices, no substantial coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * there was a Keep decision in a previous AfD less than a fortnight ago? AllyD (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * reading more carefully, I see the article says that she was the originator of the national Constitution Day celebration, not just the state one. Butin that case wouldn'twe expect more non-local references ? DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Nom should be withdrawn - there is no policy basis for sending the article back to AfD less than two weeks after an unequivocal consensus for keep. Any irregularities in the previous process should be handled through an appeal, not a new nom. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Nom should be withdrawn I agree wholeheartedly with . I was one of the people who worked really hard to bring this article up to standards and it clearly passes GNG now. Weber is not just mentioned in several Ohio news sources, but also in books as well. In addition, there is no prohibition against using local sources to measure notability, so she passes GNG easily and most likely ANYBIO since this holiday was her idea and crusade. This AfD is really puzzling to me, especially, as points out, it's only been 2 weeks since a near unanimous keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Nom should be withdrawn - There are multiple sources, be it local. This AfD should be withdrawn.ConstitutionTown (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What coverage did Weber have outside of Ohio? czar  05:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! It doesn't matter if she has coverage outside of Ohio. The fact is that she is covered in many reliable sources (Many of which I added). GNG does not specify that a person cannot be local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The GNG is a presumption, not a formula that sources = article. A lack of sources from outside a small region can indicate that the subject is only of local interest or incidental to a larger topic. Surely Weber should have sources from outside Ohio? czar  20:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have to say that it's too bad that there aren't more national sources, though I'm not surprised: it's the 1960s and going through news archives isn't easy, nor are all of them digitized. Now, I have to seriously disagree with you on GNG. Without GNG, we have no guideline as to what will be included or not in Wikipedia. If we just throw it out whenever we wish, we aren't going to get anywhere. I understand where you are coming from, but I do think that GNG is a sort of formula. If there isn't a standard for us to use, then anything goes. In this case, I want to emphasize that local coverage is certainly permissible (and valid) through GNG. Local topics are still of interest to thousands, if not millions of people, so I find the argument unpersuasive. It's important to stand by our standards and guidelines on Wikipedia. If they need changing, that's a different argument all-together. In addition to GNG, Weber certainly falls under the standard, ANYBIO, for her creation of the holiday not just in Ohio, but nationwide. Because of her an entire town has its nickname. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the bolded part of the GNG (the word "presumed"), as in there are other factors than simply having sourcing—for instance, that the majority of the content and sourcing is about Constitution Day (which does have wider coverage and includes Weber in its scope). I imagine this was the sentiment of DGG's brief nom. The standards/guidelines in that case would be to follow the proportionality of the sourcing and cover Weber in context of the Constitution Day article, indeed as the Ohio section already does.
 * I've done a fair amount of bibliographic work from the American 60s, so I can appreciate the fact that not everything is digitized, but most major publications from that era are, including the ones that would note Weber's biographical details vis-à-vis something as public as a state holiday. Local and special interest publications would likely be among the last to be digitized, but we'd also have an indication of that offline sourcing from existing bibliographies, which tend to be compiled on independently noteworthy figures. czar  04:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is User:ConstitutionTown from the same town as the subject or is there a COI here? Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, hasn't said where they are from, but from their edits, I think they're from Louisville, OH. However, that said, I don't think it would be proper to ask someone to "out" themselves either as being from the town or not. Let's assume we're dealing with someone who has a particular interest, as their Contribution list shows. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - since the nom has (unwisely, in my view) declined to withdraw the nom, and since no policy grounds have been proposed to delete the article (which clearly meets the GNG), someone unINVOLVED should close it keep tomorrow, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close This should not have been put up for consideration right after it passed an AfD discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It might have been strategic for me to wait a while longer, but at this point I cannot withdraw it, as others have commented for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To assume good faith, I imagine that you have not read the discussion carefully, DGG. There are no !votes for deletion, whether per policy or otherwise. The merge !vote is neither here nor there, and neither is the cross-talk about the validity of strictly Ohio sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Length of reference has nothing to do with whether there is adequate coverage in RS to develop a biography without doing original research. Guidelines clearly allow for chaining together information. Meets GNG. Also, while there is no requirement that sources not be regional, two different Congressional Records, i.e. not Ohio sources, confirm that page A6653, page 14041 her unique accomplishment was recognized outside of Ohio. While not substantial, they defeat the argument that the only recognition of her accomplishment was in her home state. SusunW (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Constitution Day (United_States), which is what most of the content is actually about, not the otherwise apparently unremarkable person.  Sandstein   12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Keep per SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 15 November 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.