Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Boone


 * 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. Nomination Withdrawn.And, keeping this open will likely generate far more heat than light. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Boone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. This may be a bit of a test case: does the mere filing of a patent infer notability? The article does not appear to demonstrate any lasting coverage in reliable secondary sources etc but relies instead entirely on contemporary primary sources. FWIW, I've just removed some citations referencing findagrave, which is not considered to be reliable anyway. Sitush (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that an issue of a patent is not in itself evidence of notability, the nature of this invention makes it a keep to my mind.  The ironing sleeve board is a common household item today and invention of it is thus notable per se.  In any case, it is an easy keep since she does not fail GNG as claimed, she only fails as a test case for patents.  She is covered in many books on black inventors and domestic science, e.g. African American Awareness: A Curriculum, Lessons of Black History Makers 'N' Action, Great Discoveries and Inventions by African-Americans. SpinningSpark 15:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahem, WP:SPS - Lulu, Authorhouse etc are not reliable sources, so none of your links apply. I agree that a sleeve board is quite commonly found even today but that does not mean it is the design in question, nor indeed that the design in question was ever put into production. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My first source is published by Good Year Books. I stand to be corrected, but they seem to be a reputable educational publisher in business since 1973, long before the internet and self-publishing became a thing.  My second source is authored by E. P. McKnight who has a masters degree in Educational Psychology.  That might get her past the "recognised expert" hurdle, and even if it doesn't, she is possibly notable as an actress.  Even if her information is not deemed reliable, the views of a notable person on the subject is worthy of note and adds to its notability.  Don't know about David M. Foy though.
 * You've got to be kidding that sleeve boards are a different design today invalidates her claim to notability. The same could be said for the inventors of cars, aeroplanes, computers ........ Still a keep for me. SpinningSpark 20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, school books are not reliable - that has long been the case, although I admit to not always being sure why. Lulu is Lulu as far as I am concerned - no reason why McKnight couldn't get it published "properly" and a Masters is nothing. I didn't say that being a different design invalidates it - there are, for example, many hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few have ended up in production. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the patent was all we had, an article may not be justified, but the coverage that exists (see also, , , ) is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sources are better than those from Spinningspark but they don't really say anything about Boone. They appear to be just passing mentions, which would perhaps indicate her bio could be redirected to some article about ironing boards where we could insert a sentence or two about her invention. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * She already gets a mention in the Ironing article. I would suggest seeing what sources others can find, and if there's consensus that there's not enough for a separate article, expanding the content there and redirecting. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. But there is nothing worth merging from the bio as it currently stands - it is all primary sourced stuff etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the references aren't brilliant but, adding what we have here, they seem sufficient overall to me bearing in mind the guidance in WP:Notability (people) that we may combine multiple independent references, even where they are not individually substantial. Merging would not be an improvement for source or target. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a collective failure to understand GNG here. The sources do not discuss her in any depth and most of those proffered so far are not reliable and/or repeat the same minimalist information. I can accept a redirect but no more. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: keeping in mind Boone's time period, is it likely that there are offline sources? I would be interested if searches in Newspaper.com or other archives might reveal more RS. I'm currently leaning towards a keep based on the assumption that offline sources do indeed exist.Thsmi002 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it must appear that I am badgering but this is getting ridiculous. I do hope that whoever closes this does not accept a keep !vote on the speculative grounds that something might exist somewhere. If that was a valid rationale then there would be no real purpose in 90% of AfDs, nor even in notability guidelines because anything can be speculated to have something recorded about it somewhere at some time. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that no one has yet come here saying they have done a search of a decent American newspaper archive and found nothing. This is why we have presumption of notability – not everyone has access to the relevant archives for a subject. And no, it does not make AfD pointless.  The purpose of AfD is to take a closer look.  But I am happy to stick with keep on the basis of what we have already.  SpinningSpark 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have searched as best I can. That is what WP:BEFORE is about. The onus should be on anyone who wants to keep it to prove that it should be kept. I am also astonished at the number of people who have turned up here in short order, mostly experienced and yet seemingly clueless about sourcing. Which projects have been notified to cause such an astonishing influx of commenters in such a short space of time? Most things I send to AfD don't get this many responses in a full week and I do suspect there may be an underlying she was a "black woman in a white man's world" sort of feeling as the basis for keeping - it isn't, and nor are any of the sources thus far provided. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a successful "black woman in a white man's world" can be a significant part of her story, . The color of our skin shouldn't matter, but it does and has in the United States, especially during her time period. Apparently, she was also a former slave. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that but it also doesn't alter the fact that there are people who contribute to Wikipedia and go way, way over the line in attempts to address what they perceive as systemic bias. Without sources that are reliable, independent and cover her life in some depth she is still not notable: we are supposed to be a reflection, not some pro-active campaign facility. I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign. You can have a thousand sources that mention her name, many of which will just be jumping on the bandwagon (ie: one newspaper picking up off another) but we need quite a bit more than just a name-check. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "do-gooding nonsense?" I find that people's good-faith efforts to write about individuals who are under-represented are hardly "nonsense," and if people make mistakes about notability, that's what AfD is for. And there is a systemic bias, especially from Boone's time period. She was a slave. She's highly unlikely to be covered in local news sources as there weren't a lot of black newspapers yet. However, her invention is important and, I've learned, was a game-changer in how people ironed. That's significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what I mean by "do-gooding nonsense" now then probably you never will. An example: if someone is a Dalit and LGBTQ then they seem to be able to scrape through GNG like no other person would do; it sometimes seems as though if they also had a disability such as just one leg then some people would be demanding immediate raising to FA status. It is ridiculous. Subaltern historians exist: let them write about the subalterns and we can reflect their writings. Yes, I know it seems impossibly unlikely but it does happen - they're good at that sort of thing, eg: E. P. Thompson, Marc Bloch and lord knows how many from the Indian subaltern school. We should not act as apologists for the mistakes, prejudices etc of our forebears: that is liberal wishy-washy stuff and I am more and more convinced by the piling-on here that it is such stuff which is driving it, not our policies and guidelines, which are basically being ignored. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What you see, as "ignoring" guidelines, I see as reading the guidelines. When someone makes an important contribution, such as an important invention, especially when the odds are stacked against them, they pass #2 ANYBIO. That's clear. The thing is, that you seem very biased against what you dismissively call "liberal wishy-washy stuff" so you are unable to see that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am aware of ANYBIO, thanks. She patented something; so did many other people. Not every patent makes it to production. Show the evidence that this one did, rather than some other patented by someone else. As I said above, there are hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few can be shown to have reached production and even fewer made any difference. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * is good on this sort of thing. No mention of Boone, alas. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a sleeve board patented in 1884, years before Boone's. Of course, there are many patented after her also. The reason she has got passing mentions here and there is very probably because, yes, her slave/black/female background makes her an unusual case. But there is no meat to those mentions, hence the problem. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop making unfounded claims on people's motives. You couldn't be more wrong about what is driving my participation here, but as it's not relevant, please go to my talk page where I will be happy to explain to you my method for finding debates to participate in and my personal criteria for supporting an article.  For someone who is so hung up on the quality of sourcing it is rather hypocritical to make assumptions on motives without evidence.  I also note your claim that educational books are unreliable was not supported with a link to policy - more failure to practice what you preach. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a claim - I worded it to avoid that - and I didn't refer to you specifically with regard to what I did say. It is extremely worrying to me that we have admins here who seem not to understand our guidelines, though. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"In 1888, a woman named Sarah Goode applied for and was granted a patent in Chicago, Illinois. Goode had just conceptualized what she called the “cabinet-bed,” a bed designed to fold out into a writing desk. Meeting the increasing demands of urban living in small spaces, Goode invented the cabinet-bed “so as to occupy less space, and made generally to resemble some article of furniture when so folded.” Goode was a 19th century inventor who reimagined the domestic space to make city living more efficient. Yet unless you’re a very specific kind of historian, you’ve probably never heard of her name. She doesn’t appear in history books, and what she did remains largely unknown. The same goes for Mariam E. Benjamin, Sarah Boone and Ellen Elgin—all 19th century African-American women who successfully gained patents in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds."
 * Strong Keep Firstly, there are a miniscule number of African-American women slaves or former slaves who were awarded a patent during the 19th-century. A miniscule amount of press coverage was afforded these women. According to the Smithsonian in McNeill, Leila (February 7, 2017), "These Four Black Women Inventors Reimagined the Technology of the Home":


 * Secondly, it is unclear to me what you mean,, by this sentence, "I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign." but I can tell you how it made me feel: hurt and targeted. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well sorry about that but crap is created. It isn't your fault that it is created because you didn't actually do it. Nowhere have I mentioned your name so perhaps try to get over it? - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * what you're not understanding is that your words and actions can hurt others, even if you do not intend for that to happen. is expressing that to you and her feelings are valid. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , let us agree to disagree regarding this article. But you mentioned Women in Red in a manner which I consider to be cavalier and disparaging. To be clear, I am referring to WP:WikiProject Women in Red, the community co-founded by and me in 2015, which was shortlisted in 2016 by ITU/UN Women for the GEM-TECH Award. You and I have not exchanged harsh words before, Sitush; let's try to stay that course. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if I hurt you then I am sorry for that. But it won't change my opinion of that project, although I do acknowledge it is way better than the Dalit History Month project. I think far too many people on Wikipedia take offence at the first sign of a challenge: robust opinion is valid, we're not in kindergarten and, as a part-Yorkshireman, I tend to call a spade a spade, not a shovel. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your quote is another passing mention. She can have her place on this project via a redirect until some researcher actually does dig some stuff out (it happens - see my last reply to Megalibrarygirl just now). The fact that the source specifically says "[They] doesn’t appear in history books, and what [they] did remains largely unknown." is exactly the point - she fails GNG for a standalone article. All these attempts - DHM, BHM, WIR - to boost unknown people are effectively attempts to game the system. We are supposed to be a reflection, not a campaign, as I said above. If people want to campaign, go fork the project. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So your opinion is that these projects "Game the system?" and in the same paragraph you are trying to say how you want this AfD closed? Last I checked, Wikipedia was a collaborative effort. We can decide what goes in and what stays out collectively. You don't get to decide for all of us. And you still haven't addressed 's concerns. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my concern but obviously not every single thing they do: they are enablers, more than anything. I am not sure which of your WIR mate Rosiestep's concerns you feel I have not addressed but you and all the admins here really should know that redirects are common for people who lack significant independent coverage about their lives etc in reliable sources but, nonetheless, have a vestigial notability. The redirect can always be turned back into a full-blown article if information turns up via the subaltern historians etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Her invention made a difference to how ironing was done. Even if we didn't have little biographical details, her work itself is important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The framing of "any old patent is inherently notable" is creating a straw man argument. The article needs more sourcing, but things such as a school textbook meet RS in terms of third-party publisher and fact-checking, it's not the Daily Mail. And it isn't "merely" getting a patent that is notable. It's OMG, the odds she overcame to get a patent completed and filed in her own name was amazing in her time and place, particularly given the odds against her.  And the invention was notable, regardless of design changes.  For my mother's generation in particular (you know, for whom a perfect home and perfect clothing became how they were judged), these things were a godsend.  Once again, I think we have a "pre-Google sourcing" concern here, a problem that often hits with these biographies of 19th century people.  Montanabw (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And what muddies the waters searching for her, is that there are several historic "Sarah Boones." The name is common and it's slowing research down on my end. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons we do not use school textbooks is, I think, because they oversimplify and lack any credible academic depth. They often screw things up big time, too, eg: NCERT controversy. I do accept the "OMG" point - I've never disputed it - but OMG isn't in any guidelines I've seen. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have looked at the article again in the last hour and can see some stuff has happened there that no-one has mentioned here. Combining the Smithsonian thing mentioned above with the ThoughtCo website and a book someone has linked at archive.org does it for me - thanks for finding that material. Any uninvolved person can feel free to consider this AfD withdrawn. I know a lot of you think I have been tough here but I spend most of my time dealing with issues of systemic bias etc and, well, the article as it stood when I first saw it, plus my own research (there are a lot of Boones out there) seemed to justify the nomination. Sorry if anyone thinks I have wasted their time but I do stand by a lot of the points I made above, eg: all of the stuff about passing mentions being insufficient, ANYBIO not applying, self-published works by people with Masters degrees being useless etc even though others thought otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes I'm here because of Women in Red being mentioned. Not sure why this is relevant, but it invites this defence. I see here that the concept of notability is getting confused with fairness. Its not as if notability is under threat - we have umpteen of thousands of notable women identified who are notable and missing from Wikipedia. (It is important that there were sensible rules for sitting on the buses in Alabama.) These rules are the instrument of fulfilling values and rights. We don't need to change the rules of notability in this discussion, but where our existing Wiki-rules prevent us from attaining the values and rights we aspire to share, then those rules will need to be changed. Victuallers (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad you used "grandstand" as an edit summary because it won't happen. You're too invested in the movement as an activist and activists are more prone to lose control of their emotions. For what it is worth, anyone who gets a grant from the WMF or chapters for development of articles etc is, by definition, a paid editor with all the baggage that brings. But all of this is for another day, hey? - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2018 (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.