Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Van Thyn


 * 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 no consensus. Clearly there are polarised opinions on this, and I don't think relisting will do any good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Rose Van Thyn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Yet another Shreveport-related figure who might have local notability but nothing beyond that. One of many Shreveport bios created/maintained by a rather niche group of contributors - several others have recently been deleted. Sitush (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Two articles in The Shreveport Times does not notability make. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has eight sources, not two. Was a "Did you Know" in 2009. Subject fully notable.97.105.163.82 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And your geolocation + interests suggests you are a sock of the banned The sources you reinstated were blogs etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep An oral history interview with Van Thyn is on file at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, she was an Attaway fellow, was awarded an honorary degree, an annual Rose and Louis Van Thyn Holocaust Lecture Series is held at Centenary College, and she was given a National Conference of Community and Justice award. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to explain this to me. I don't see the significance of an oral history interview, nor an honorary degree - neither have ever counted towards notability in any article I've seen. The significance of other things you mention are just plain meaningless to me, perhaps because I am not in the US. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * any chance you can explain, please? In particular, what is the Attaway Fellow thing and why is it significant in relation to notability? I think the oral history issue has been worked out (it doesn't contribute to notability). - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I found plenty of news sources in LA that document her life and achievements significantly. She passes GNG. Please see the article. I cleaned it up and added sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E applies. She was a holocaust survivor and all the media is driven off that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject was a Holocaust survivor who, according to news sources, was a Holocaust educator. Over the years she was recognized for her service toward that effort. So, no, the media was not driven off of only surviving the Holocaust. If you read the sources, you will see that media was driven afterward by her Holocaust education efforts. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know what? I've tried four times now to draft a response to that and each time I have had to stop because I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism". Let's just say that your sources seem to be pretty poor: almost entirely one local newspaper that simply churns out what it is fed by people wanting publicity for a cause/event etc. That's the same the world over. She was a "local hero" as an educator, whoop-de-doo, but so is the headteacher of every primary school and their frequent mentions in local papers don't create notability. It is the event that fascinates in this instance, not the person. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * She was indeed a local hero, educator and Holocaust survivor. There is nothing in GNG that precludes local entries as long as RS cover them. She is covered extensively in two different LA newspapers. I'm not arguing to keep her just because of "anti-semitism:" she passes GNG. The news in these sources covering her isn't just routine--it's significant and starts as early as the 1990s and continues after her death. Not every educator is covered like that, nor are all survivors of the Holocaust. A named endowed chair at a college is named after her and she received other awards as well, showing that she wasn't just a "whoop-de-doo" run of the mill educator. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Holders of named chairs are notable, not the person they're named after. Local heroes are not notable per se, hence why so many Indian bios get deleted and indeed, in part why so many articles such as this created by Billy Hathorn have gone - as Bearcat said in different circumstances, it is the local media's job to write about such people. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How would the holder of a named chair be notable, but not who they were named after? That doesn't make any sense at all.   D r e a m Focus  16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite easily, actually. It only takes being rich or being liked enough by someone who is rich. Many named chairs are named after non-notable rich people's deceased parents or godparents. Not sure what the case is here, but having a chair named after you is an indicator of connection to wealth, nothing more. Re: the GNG argument above: the GNG is a guideline to which commonsense must apply. We routinely exclude local sourcing as according notability for biographies because, quite frankly, all you have to do to get it is call the paper. I don't have an opinion on the notability of the subject, but the keep arguments thus far are exceptionally weak, and I thought it worth pointing out. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, strong referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. I don't, but you should. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, . You know nothing about me, my relations and friends. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't write the "I am not antisemitic, but ..." and "some of my best friends are Jewish" trite expressions, which you left on my talk page. It leaves the wrong impression. It still leaves the fact that you are trying to delete an article on a Holocaust survivor during the week of a Neo-Nazi gathering and murder. Maybe your hatred of Hawthorn Louisiana articles blinded you, but the optics are not good. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We nominate articles for deletion all the time. It's an objective process. We don't ignore process because someone somewhere misconstrues it as a personal attack because they can't separate the actions of encyclopedia writers from what they saw on TV. I find it shameful that you attach these motives to Sitush. The fact that you doth protest too much evinces your lack of rationale. If the events around the world remove you from objectivity perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, at all. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been substantially improved since the nomination and the subject appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I encourage the lone "delete" !voter to review the revised article and reconsider. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is notable because of the coverage they receive, as well as the recognition of their work.  D r e a m Focus  16:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have the time to search here like I would prefer for a biography, so refraining from actually !voting, but the article as currently stands is nowhere near meeting the GNG: the vast majority of the sourcing is from one publication, which only counts as one source per WP:N, the guideline people always forget the GNG is contained as but one part of. Add on top of that we have it being a local paper? The oral history certainly doesn't count either: it's a primary source. Like local press, getting into an oral history library is very easy to do. There might be external sourcing that isn't in there, but what we have currently have is an obit for what seems to be a wonderful woman. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)≥
 * Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG because she doesn't have "significant coverage in reliable sources" (plural). If someone can find significant coverage in a publication other than the Shreveport Times I will re-consider my !vote.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly does meet WP:GNG and has sourcing beyond just one newspaper. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has changed immeasurably since I nominated it and, as I ususally say in noms of US-based stuff, I do not have access to many US newspapers. However, there is one heck of a double-standard going on when US subjects can pass GNG based on mentions in local and perhaps regional media but Indian subjects are regularly failed unless they are mentioned in the nationals. India is, of course, a vastly more populous country. Something that the participants here might to reflect upon in future discussions, even if OSE applies. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sure, if we analyzed the article as it stood before the nomination, I would probably !vote delete. However, a nice ol' WP:BEFORE search and recent expansion is convincing enough for me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak delete - Hang on a sec, Sitush has a point about the extent of the coverage. The majority of sources are from a localized newspaper which, in my opinion, fails WP:DIVERSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Article is well written and seemingly lots of sources. However they are all very local Louisiana sources - mostly Shreveport Times ("the Times"). Aside from that we have: another local paper from Alexandria ("The Town Talk"), PR news release from the Centenary College of Louisiana on the "Annual Rose and Louis Van Thyn Holocaust Lecture", and a "Oral history interview" in the Holocaust museum (which is both PRIMARY and ROUTINE - Holocaust museums have in recent decades attempted to interview any and all survivors willing to sit with them). I also managed to find a poetry book by her (which doesn't seem to have received coverage). All of this is not enough by itself, additional book or national newspaper coverage is required.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and . While Holocaust survivors are famous in their local communities, if they do not have significant national coverage, they are not notable for Wikipedia. All these articles are from one local newspaper. She does not even have her own page at the Yad Vashem website. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, notability has not been demonstrated. There is a concerted lack of persistent depth of coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  11:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The significant coverage in the regional Shreveport papers now cited in the article and which are independent of the subject satisfies WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How so? BASIC satates "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" - there are current two newspapers in the article. Multiple The Times (Shreveport) articles, and a single piece (which is mainly an interview) in the Alexandria "Town Talk".Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered best by Smmurphy(Talk) in the !vote immediately below this one. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - passes WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V. I don't think non-local coverage is a requirement in WP:RS. As for N, WP:VICTIM states, " The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role", Thyn received persistent coverage from at least three newspapers small Louisiana newspapers (Shreveport Times, Alexandria Town Talk, Monroe News-Star per https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Rose+Van+Thyn%22). Note that newspapers.com isn't exhaustive of Louisianan newspapers, for instance neither the NO Advocate nor contemporary issues of the NO Times-Picayune are indexed (the two largest papers in NO. As a creative professional (giving talks on her life), there is not a strong case, but her talk is kept at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and reviewed in those three papers. As for GNG, independent sources seems sufficient. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue re: local sources is not a trivial point. If we accept the argument then every local town councillor, every parish councillor, many clerics at the lowest level, many minor local officials, political apparatchiks, headteachers etc would all meet the bar. At present, they do not and so the issue of coverage scope is implicit even if not explicit. As others have said above, it is incredibly easy to get in local news sources (I've done it umpteen times, and I've done it for other people, too) - their own bar is very low. And I am still narked that all the people coming here to argue it is ok never show up for the equivalent "local coverage is satisfactory" debates about biographies relating to Asia etc: it is incredibly US-centric and we're operating one rule for the US and another for everywhere else (broadly speaking). - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A number of years ago I was involved in saving a similar Holocaust-survivor article about a man who spoke all over Southern California. But that page was deleted due to local-only sourcing. Another time I had a health-food enthusiast on the West Coast whose page was saved from deletion because, in addition to all her local sources, she was once written up in The New York Times. We really need to have a clear and unambiguous rule as to what "significant coverage" and "broad sourcing" mean to deal with local news stories like this one. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea that suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia is a fairly low bar, particularly for people who are no longer living. For some, particularly marginally notable living people, inclusion in wikipedia itself has a particular meaning that, if coverage is entirely local, may fall afoul of WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, but I'm not sure. I generally only !vote at historical articles, but for what it is worth, I do !vote at numerous biographies relating to Asia, and am happy to point to them if you are interested. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, Smmurphy. I know you participate in Asia-related AfDs. Mine was intended as a general point about how people do things and which seems to be repeating itself on this occasion. I could have made the same point in response to some other contributor to this discussion - I just opted for the most recent comment, which was perhaps lazy of me. Apologies. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I have a lot of respect for the work you do on CSB and Asian articles, at AfD and elsewhere. No offense was taken; I guess I felt like sticking up for myself even though I knew you were probably not specifically meaning me. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG. A bias against regional sources is not policy and it should not be because it would tend to cause a metropolitian bias.  Our actual policies such as WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTCENSOR, WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR all indicate that we should keep this article.  If it were to be "deleted" what this would actually mean is that the page would be put on the back shelves of wikipedia, where only administrators could read it.  It would make no sense for this subject to be blacklisted so that the world could not have free access to this material which was voluntarily contributed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As so often, you show a woeful ignorance of policy and a broad-brush approach to notability ("well, someone spent time creating it, so we should keep it). I'm intrigued by how many names associated with the Article Rescue Squadron are turning up, btw. Has that much-maligned project been revived? - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - WP:AGF please. And I'm self-marked on the Article Rescue Squadron and voted weak delete. ARS members watch AFD lists - it's not surprising (so do hardcore deletionists - it balances out). And sometimes there are good saves to be made - I made one this week - Articles for deletion/Joseph Nicholson Barney which started out as  (you could understand why it was AFDed in that state) and morphed into -  Joseph Nicholson Barney. Rescuing articles isn't about showing up and voting Keep everywhere (I do vote Delete!) - it is about finding sources. And then improving articles.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was simply a question, based on the usual keep votes from Dream Focus and Andrew Davidson. ARS has (had?) a rather poor reputation and I thought had rather died a death after various scrimmages at ANI etc, with accusations that it was effectively a canvassing outfit and too many people were incessantly and unreasonably !voting keep. But that doesn't mean every single person who signs up for it is of the same temperament. One of the problems of the AfD system is that in many cases it can be gamed because, like it or not, people do tend to !vote count and a "no consensus" leads to the subject article being kept. Let's face it, neither Dream Focus nor Davidson have given worthy rationales here - it's just the usual stuff from them. I, too, have "saved" plenty of articles; in fact, my first big effort here was saving a contentious one and taking it to GA status. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This article was never listed on the Rescue Squadron's wikiproject. I looked over things at AFD, and this is one of the ones I happened to click on.   D r e a m Focus  09:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was listed there. I asked whether the project had been revived, given the appearance of some rather prominent members here. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ARS never went away. Myself, I'm currently more active with the Women in Red project and, as it happens, was recently discussing Holocaust survivors there.  You'll find that there are several members from that project here now too as they have natural interest in such subjects. But I suppose the main reason that people are showing up at this discussion is Sitush's own postings about it at high-profile pages like WP:ANI.  These lit up my watchlist for several days before I looked to see what all the fuss was about. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Andrew D. (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush! Please don't personalise these AfDs in a negative way. Sorry to see another editor made an obviously untrue, but very offensive remark that could be interrupted as against yourself. But that is no reason to make negative remarks about editors who have behaved impeccably. We can't afford for folk like the Colonel or Dream to be driven away. (Speaking personally they are one of the few reasons I've not totally stopped editing due to all the unpleasantness that goes on here.) The impossibly cool DreamFocus has been an inspiration to other editors for over a decade. Checking his contribs, it looks like the Colonel was at Burlington House yesterday, attending a Royal Society event to encourage more women into STEM, and to encourage scientists and others to edit Wikipedia. The Colonel is frequently doing work like that. He presumably made his vote here to introduce newbies to AfD, an area many feel is neglected by sensitive editors due to excessive negativity. How is it going to appear to newbies if even the contribution of someone as impressive and scholarly as the Colonel is labelled as un "worthy"? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconding the sentiment about the unfair remark. As for myself, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Article Rescue Squadron. I do, however, take note of listings at WikiProject Deletion sorting/History mostly to see if I can add anything useful to lesser-known topics and to help get hoaxes deleted. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For avoidance of doubt, I reject Sitush's ad hominem that I am woefully ignorant. Having worked at relevant places such as the Weiner Library, I reckon I am quite well informed.  My position is based upon the facts of the matter and is consistent with guidelines and policies, as stated.  We have hundreds of articles about survivors of the Holocaust and concentration camps and so it's quite consistent and reasonable that we should include this one too.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass GNG, almost entirely sourced from small local newspaper. It could have 1, or it could have 100 refs, but if they are from the same source it doesn't indicate notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:Hey The article has been substantially improved since nomination by AuthorAuthor, Megalibarygirl and Richard Aurthur Norton. If only all articles at risk from deletion could benefit from such a dream team. The subject of the article lived through some of the darkest moments of history. She had the courage to risk reliving those memories again and again in her work as an educator. For her heroism she's received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources, not just the Shreveport Times as some seem to suggest. A historic figure who is a slam dunk for passing WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I am not seeing this "extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources." Could you give a few examples?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've already seen the extensive coverage in several different Times article. This The Town Talk article is entirely about the subject and the way she puts her painfully vivid memories to good work as an educator (It's currently source no 5 in the article.). If you require further examples, inspect the article's various other sources or see Smmurphy's post above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to disagree as to whether several different articles in the same local newspaper counts as more than one source. I was hoping for some coverage outside of the area in which she lived.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Local outlets have to fill minutes and inches and they often do these sort of human interest stories. Their journalism can be lacking especially when their reportage relies so heavily on what the subject says about themselves. If academics or journalists write more about the subject in another 50 or 100 years, we can write an article then. This is not a vital article for us to have, so keeping the content I think does a disservice to both the project and the subject. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you guys making efforts to be agreeable, but as the fate of such an important article is at stake, I'm going to have to suggest some inaccurate assertions may have been made by the delete side. First it doesn’t matter whether multiple Times articles count as one source - the subject has extensive coverage in other independent RSs, so all the criteria of GNG are met. Second, while non local coverage is not required, this woman has received coverage internationally and across the US. For example source 16 currently in the article is to the Memorial Museum in Washtington, quite a trip from Louisiana. Third, suggesting that it does Wikipedia a disservice to host articles that don't qualify as WP:vital is the most far out view I've seen in all my years at AfD. The Vision of this project is to work towards a world where folk can " share in the sum of all knowledge". All knowledge, not just the tiny subset that qualifies as vital. I'm so glad young ANobody isn't here - he must already be so stressed due to Charlotteville, if he saw this argument he might literally have a heart attack.


 * A case can even be made that this qualifies as vital, albeit in an IAR sense. We've talked enough about her historic and educational role, she also seems to be globally recognised as a seamstress. Ranker have here as the no 5 dressmaker in the world. Take a look at this Storify of yesterday evening's Royal Society of Chemistry event to reduce sexism on the Internet which was mentioned above. If you go to the final slide, you can see all the well dressed women who were learning to edit Wikipedia. It's not all high minded talk at a Royal Society event, it would be quite typical to have a conversation like this: Anna:"I love your dress! Who's it by?" Sasha: {trying to sound casual} "Oh it's by Rose van Thyn" Anna: "OMG!! Rose van Thyn! She one of the world's top 5!" Others hearing this conversation might look up Rose on the internet. Imagine how embarrassing it would be if they find out that not only is she one of the world's top dress makers, but also received local, national and international coverage for her poems, for being a historic figure, and for her role as an educator - yet somehow she's not considered worthy of a Wikipedia bio? Certain conclusions could be drawn. All that said, of course we can agree to disagree if your opinions are still for delete. I better not say anymore on this AfD, maybe I've already said too much, but hopefully this does help indicate some additional reasons why it's desirable to keep this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * if she's such a notable seamstress, why isn't that mentioned in the lead or article? That would certainly make her notable. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's been added to the lede & body that she was a professional seamstress. I didn't directly say she was notable as a dress maker however - just like a bestselling book can fail GNG if it doesn't get sufficient elite reviews, a top seamstress isn't necessarily notable. Rather ridiculous, but this is not the place to try to change policy. Ranker is fine to add some context to project or talk space discussions, but Im not sure it's RS enough to make strong claims in article space. Pointing to the recognition she's received as a seamstress was just an IAR attempt to make a fresh appeal to editorial discretion.


 * The policy based heart of the keep case is the notability she's acquired for historical experiences like surviving a death march, and her 40+ years as an educator. That she decisively meets all the criteria of GNG has been explained by many editors. As per Cedric Glover her passing was a tremendous loss "to the entire world". Let's not add insult to injury by destroying her article. I hope this helps, but please can I request Im not further queried for this AfD? I don't like ignoring folk, but also don't like to talk for more than my share. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

*Delete (I was pinged to take a look) all coverage appears to be in the local, small city daily newspaper. Ping me to return if someone can find better sources, but no matter how interesting a bio is, or haw admirable the individual, a topic needs better sources to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at old news coverage, I see that the Chair named in her honor by Centenary College was funded by a public fundraising campaign. Posthumous public memorials of this sort (organizations, legislative acts, and so forth named in their honor) can make the victims of even random crimes notable.  In this case, when added to many years of local news coverage of her work, and topic passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is not "merely local," it is significant, third party, independent of the subject. Doesn't mean it has to be in the New York Times, let's not exceed the parameters of the guideline.  This individual clearly meets GNG by multiple criteria.   Montanabw (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG, sufficient reliable sources over time to prepare a comprehensive biography of the subject. There are sources other than newspapers and other than local, though there is nothing in the guidelines that precludes local sources from being used. This discusses her as being part of the sterilization experiment victims. This is an encyclopedia entry  which has been curated. (Note: I have no access to this  and though it is self-published, if it has notes to reliable sources, it might be useful as well. Not counting in my weight of evidence as the source is unavailable to me.) SusunW (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions, as well as SPS? - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Number 3 - page 8... I'm afraid I don't see how this establishes notability, she was just interviewed, and doesn't mention much about her, other than her presence; it's a good source for her presence there, but doesn't establish notability. Number 4 - a curated encyclopedia article? It's literally a copy of the Wikipedia article! That's very circular, and obviously not a valid source. 5 - self published by her family, after her death? That's also not normally considered a reliable source, let alone proof of BLP. Yes, there may well be something in there, that leads to something else that does establish BLP. But someone would have to do some work. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Centennary College seems to regard her as notable enough to name an endowed professorship after her. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, more likely, the money was given on that condition, as someone has said above. I don't think the recent keep !voters have read the prior discussion, so we're going round in circles here. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You insult someone's accomplishment with a slanderous rumor you pulled out of nowhere apparently, that someone paid for her to have that honor. That is ridiculous.  She was obviously well thought of so it not unusual they would give her that honor.   D r e a m Focus  17:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush, looking at articles in a news archive it is clear that the Van Tyne Professorship was funded via a public campaign; not, as is is more usually the case, named by or after a large donor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, EMG. Dream Focus - you should know that it is not possible to libel the dead (and it would be libel, not slander). - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is light but the endowed chair, honorary doctorate and Liberty Bell award tip the bio to sufficient notability. Also feel obliged to point out the curious double-standard of the OP's umbrage at being accused of antisemitism while he/she twice accuses Wikipedia in general of having an anti-Indian bias in regards to deleting Indian bios. TheValeyard (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No double standard, User:TheValeyard: Accusations of anti-semitism are considered one of the worst personal attacks that can be made- and has just led to an indefinite block ( for an admin's opinion)- whereas WP's 'anti-Indian bias' is acknowledged by the project itself- to the extent that we even have a (long-standing and rather in-depth) essay upon the phenomenon. Hope that clarifies things. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That user does not appear to be blocked, and there is the scantest of mentions of India in the cited essay, certainly nothing that proves of concludes an anti-Indian bias. So, 0-for-two on those claims. TheValeyard (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing new to add to the above except Jeez pick on someone else! -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:34, 21 August 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.