Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa El-Amin

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. Kurykh (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa El-Amin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the criteria at WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject". Also fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). I'm not sure why the article of a prominent civil rights activist is being nominated for deletion during Black History Month, but there are an abundance of sources for this article. Beyond those specifically cited in the article, her personal papers, containing over 22,000 documents, are being held for documentation at prestigious Duke University. She is recognized over and over again for her contributions to the Civil Rights movement and over her more than 50 years of activism. It is a stub and needs to be expanded, not deleted.--TM 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly appreciate the invaluable contribution of notable black people, particularly civil rights activists, whatever the month. I am involved in projects relating to systemic bias such as South Africa, India, and of course, the WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I don't like your inference. Your first source allegedly recognising Ms El-Amin is a promotional flier advertising an upcoming event held at the Central Piedmont Community College. The second source appears to be a self-authored directory listing of some sort with Ms El-Amin's contact details. Do you seriously believe those are acceptable sources, irrespective of the month? AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both links show that she is recognized as a notable contributor to the Civil Rights movement. The second link in particular is run by Historically Black College Tougaloo College for "Civil Rights Movement Veterans". The combination of her personal papers being stored at Duke University, her more than half century of civil rights and labor activism and her position as a co-chair of a nationally organized political party should be enough to establish notability, especially when one considers Wikipedia's stark systemic bias.--TM 15:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They show nothing of the sort. A piece of advertising for an upcoming event or a self-authored directory listing are not credible sources. This, however, shows hypocrisy. Revenge-nominating for deletion an overwhelmingly black secondary school in South Africa, a country suffering from systemic bias on Wikipedia, during *gasp* Black History Month, despite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith and discuss the prospects of this article, not whatever conspiracy you seem to find behind my editing. You still have not refuted how the 22,000 documents in El-Amin's personal papers kept at Duke University nor her term as chair of one of the largest political parties in the country do not contribute to her obvious notability. She is perpetually honored as a veteran and leader of the Civil Rights Movement even decades afterward.--TM 16:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources contribute to notability. You are yet to point us to any sources. Notability is not inherited from holding a position within a micro political party. If you have any evidence of honours which would show evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO please present it. In the meantime take a look at WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NOTRS which make clear sources such as self-authored directory entries partially consisting of contact details and advertising material are not acceptable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of passing mentions, some photo captions, but I cannot find anything in-depth at all. One would think that such a person would have gotten a few profile pieces done, but none of the sources provide enough material to write more than a job history. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has had a long tenure in a public role in civil rights activism and continuously received passing mentions in news articles for decades. Per BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Also, significant collection of papers in the Duke Library system is a decision about the importance of the individual's work made by independent expert(s) and seems to confer some notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duke University's archives include the Theresa El-Amin Papers, an indicator of historical significance. This article from Adrienne Harreveld of Duke's Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality dedicates 18 pages to El-Amin's life and is a rich, detailed source that could be used to expand the article. El-Amin was also national co-chair of the Green Party. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of noteworthy activity. While no single event would qualify her on its own (which in itself would be problematic as it would trigger WP:ONEEVENT) the totality of experience more than satisfies WP:GNG. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.