Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearlretta DuPuy


 * 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. Based on the consensus of this discussion. Alex ShihTalk 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pearlretta DuPuy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is that she was a member of almost entirely non-notable local clubs. And the only sources here are a 100-word blurb in a biographical dictionary of mostly non-notable people, and a family genealogy in which she's briefly namechecked on a single page — which means she isn't the subject of anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, and she has no notability claim strong enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG. As important as it is to address Wikipedia's gender imbalance, the way to do that is not to apply strict notability and sourcing standards to men while letting women into Wikipedia just because they can be nominally verified as having been vice-president of a local social club. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Pearlretta Weller DuPuy was a parliamentarian in a time when women had hardly rights. She was a charter member of the Los Angeles Women's Athletic Club and Ebell of Los Angeles, which are two of the more important Women's Club in California history. She was the president of the San Pedro Woman's Club and first vice-president of the Robert Parliamentary Club. Those are not "non-notable local clubs". Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Regardless of whether a social club is notable or not as an entity, it cannot confer an automatic notability freebie on every (or any) individual member (or president, or vice-president) of it, if that member is not herself the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in her own right. And whatever the "Robert Parliamentary Club" is, it wasn't an elected national or subnational legislature — so being a member of it doesn't make her a "parliamentarian" in the legislator sense of the word, which is the only sense of the word that can turn "parliamentarian" into a notability claim in and of itself. A "Parliamentary Club" is a social club, not a legislative body, so being a member or vice-president of it is completely orthogonal to whether women had political rights at the time or not — it's like saying that a person gets over WP:AUTHOR for being president of a local library's weekly book club even though she never actually wrote anything herself. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Parliamentarian (consultant): A parliamentarian is an expert on parliamentary procedure who advises organizations and deliberative assemblies. This sense of the term "parliamentarian" is distinct from the usage of the same term to mean a member of Parliament. [...] Parliamentarians are expected to be experts in meeting procedures and such books as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as well as the rules of the body they are working for." --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless examples of more substantial coverage can be provided. References number 2, 3, 4, 5 currently listed in the article are just brief mentions. The only current source providing more substantial coverage is ref no. 1 on p. 39, . It is a brief biographical entry, about 6 sentences/approximately 80 words total. GoggleBooks and GoogleScholar searches do not produce anything else of relevance except one brief mention here. As things stand, does not pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nsk92 you are searching in the wrong way unfortunately at the time there was no use of first name for women. If you search for "mrs. Robert g. Dupuy" you have more hits... this is the result of how women were treated beginning of the XX century. And more than google books a better source for these figures is archive.com or newspaper.com. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to make these searches on as I can't find much yet? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe:
 * archive.org "mrs robert g. dupuy" (2 hits):
 * archive.org "mrs robert dupuy" (6 hits):
 * archive.org "mrs r. g. dupuy" (2 hits):
 * archive.org pearlretta dupuy (2 hits):
 * newspapers.com "mrs robert g. dupuy" (9 hits):
 * newspapers.com "mrs robert dupuy" (1883 to 1939) (16 hits):
 * newspapers.com "mrs r. g. dupuy" (1883 to 1939) (38 hits):
 * newspapers.com pearlretta dupuy (1 hits):
 * as per comment below, they are still using male-oriented logic. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the immense effort that you have but into this BIO. You have established that the person existed but unfortunately the references are all trivial. Extistence does not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
 * I tried varies searches along the lines of what Elisa.rolle suggested but have found essentially nothing. For a genuinely notable subject from late 19th-early 20th century one would expect to find more examples of later and more recent coverage, including some mentions in modern scholarship, etc. That's not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * see WP:NEXIST Atsme 📞📧 01:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is evidence that the biography should be allowed to grow. this indicated that the subject used "Pearl" as a diminutive. Searching under Pearl Severance,, , , , , , indicates that she had recognition in Iowa, California and Arizona as a zither player. this indicates she taught the instrument. this while not substantial, also indicates that she was of interest in more than just a local area. (I actually found several references in Waterloo, Iowa though most were simply social visits to the area). As  pointed out, searching for women, especially historic women requires more skill than a google search for one name. As for the "mentions in modern scholarship" that is not a requirement on WP. She meets GNG, as there is enough coverage in independent reliable sources which cover the subject over time to create a fairly comprehensive biography without performing original research. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Despite the hard work that has been put into the media searches, nothing of enough significance to confer notability has been found. Recognition of teaching the zither, a worthy activity that contributes to society, is not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep A lot of recentism and IDONTLIKEIT in this debate. The historic sources are print, and if they were 21st century, we'd have more than enough to establish WP:GNG.  Just because the Zither is not an electric guitar or that the coverage has a society column tone does not mean that there was no notability in the time.  The article has multiple third-party sources independent of the subject.  It is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * Regardless of whether WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it remains that there are no in-depth sources to support this biography. The fact that sources cannot be found has never been taken to prove that they must exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia does not have any rule that our sources have to be published online; print-only sources do count toward GNG. But we do have a rule that sources have to be shown to exist. It is not enough to simply presume that better sources probably exist somewhere, because anybody could simply claim that about anything whatsoever. I could claim that somebody wrote a book about my cat and get her into Wikipedia if I didn't have to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure when the argument that there are not sources came out. The point has always been that the way how the sources were researched is wrong. There are plenty of sources, in print and with the name of DuPuy in the headline. Therefore if, as per previous comment, "print-only sources do count toward GNG", than as stated by others before, this article meet WP:GNG. on Archive.org you have print books with DuPuy in them. on Newspapers.com there are plenty of articles.Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references were badly formatted, enough to make them all look the same, but they include stories about her music in major newspapers from different states in different years with her name in the headline (I'm not counting the marriage and death notices), and a somewhat telegraphic but nevertheless in-depth profile in a biographical dictionary. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Recentism applies here and makes it more difficult to establish notability, but David Eppstein, SusunW and others have established enough coverage in reliable sources for this article to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep historically notable. Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with comments by Cwmhiraeth & David Eppstein above. Scanlan (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per several previous editors. For me it's the biographical dictionary that does it once and for all - it indicates to me that she was just notable enough to make it into a book like that. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous editors; locating extensive sources on these historic figures is often difficult; that this one appears in a number of major, reputable listings establishes adequate indicia of notability.  Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 12 September 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.