Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus here seems to be relatively evenly split between merge/redirect and keep. On top of that, we have a significant number of users suggesting the AfD is unbundled. As such, it's extremely unclear what the consensus is, as such I'm closing this as no consensus. I would suggest that individual articles be renominated individually so each article can be judged on its own merits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining members of the council of grandmothers

[edit]
Agnes Baker Pilgrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bernadette Rebienot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Margaret Behan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mona Polacca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rita Long Visitor Holy Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rita Pitka Blumenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tsering Dolma Gyaltong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group nomination constitutes the remaining membership of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, which is also nominated for deletion. (Several members are already separately nominated, and two do not have articles.) The problem all around is the same: the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources. There is a decided lack of real third party sourcing excepting a very few fugitive references. I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group; if they be identified I will split them out into separate nominations or remove them entirely. But it seems unnecessary to subject everyone to a blow-by-blow deletion of each. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • generally delete/merge all, unbundle agnes. - but Rita may be worth pulling out separately, per the "Acclaim in Alaska" section. Tsering may also be more sourcable due to the actions re Tibet, and the relation to the Dalai lama. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally delete all - Per noms reasonings, although I would not be opposed to Gaijin42s exceptions in the above comment if the reliable sources they mention for Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein could be found. Heiro 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. For Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein, there appears to be some evidence that could arguably be considered evidence of notability, but not nearly enough. No evidence at all for the rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising for any of them. Even in the case of Tsering Dolma Gyaltong and Rita Pitka Blumenstein, there is insufficient substantial coverage to make a credible claim of notability, or to write a coherent article on. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding material about Margaret Behan in Indian Country Today and an interview with her in AARP International, using the Ixquick search engine, which is less focused on "personalization" of search results. Djembayz (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: y'all serious?
We have discussed that book on the group AFD, it is a collection of essays BY the group, with very little content written ABOUT the group. It certainly is not an independent source. The news articles are either not reliable, self published, or brief mentions saying "They showed up at such and such a conference, tickets are $5 at the door. " Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the book preview it looks as though at least the first half of the book is biographies written by Schaefer. I understand that the book is sympathetic to the group, but I don't think that means it's not independent. groupuscule (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.

  • Keep for case by case AfDs. Original article notable enough per sources and [ this news.google.archive search which can be used to beef up the refs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A group nomination of all of these elders seems ill-conceived to me and goes against WP:BUNDLE, which says that "an article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled". While they are each members of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, they are too loosely related to be bundled, having come from different communities from around the world and having separate accomplishments which distinguish them. While a couple of these women *may* have borderline notability, they deserve consideration on a case by case basis. The book Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet contains detailed biographies of each of these women, which in itself imparts enough notability to pass WP:BIO. News archive searches also bring up more sources for each of these individuals, further establishing notability. Gobōnobō + c 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Seems we learn a new and sensible policy every day. (To make up for silly ones learn about once a week or so.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These articles have been adequately cited to establish notability of these individuals. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Unbundle per WP:BUNDLE. These are all very different women from different parts of the world with completely different achievements and levels of notability. I see no reason they should be bundled for deletion just because they all belong to a borderline-notable group. Also I don't believe that a reference being "fugitive" disqualifies it from being reliable. Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles were created at the same time, by the same editor, using the same sources, which are all discussing them in the context of the group. Further, the content for many of the articles was identical with the bulk of paragraphs copied exactly between them. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unbundling, In my opinion, this clearly meets our bundling criteria. And they all have the same levels of notability (none) and remarkably similar achievements (tribal spiritual leader, member of the council of grandmothers). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can show some specific evidence that one of the nominated articles could be defended in its own right, I would unbundle that one. But since they all rely on essentially the same single source, I see no reason to go through this multiple times. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's start with the first one on the list. Agnes Baker Pilgrim is notable for:
  • Being the Chairperson of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers
  • Restoring the Sacred Salmon Ceremony to the Takelma tribe
  • Founding the Konanway Nika Tillicum Youth Academy
  • Being a spiritual elder and the oldest member of the Takelma tribe
  • Being featured in a bronze statue in downtown Ashland, Oregon
None of these achievements are shared by any of the other women. She is discussed in a book and an academic journal, as well as several "fugitive" sources, such as newspapers and online journals/websites. Clearly she would pass WP:N if she were not bundled. I haven't looked at any of the other articles in depth, but this one does not give me confidence that the bundling is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not mean "has accomplishments". It means being covered in independent 3rd party reliable non self published sources. what sources do you see (that are not in the context of the 13, only covering Agnes) that meet that criteria, and would support unbundling? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd party reliable non-self-published sources are Australian Humanities Review (academic journal), Ashland Daily Tidings (local newspaper), and the biography from Schaefer's book. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, please review Wikipedia:Notability (people). Those are the criteria we are using. BTW, there is no need to put a message on my talk page saying that you replied to a post of mine. Wikipedia already has an automated system that notifies me when that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Sounds like she passes to me. Your insistence that her notability is "none" is disingenuous. If her notability where "none" I don't think they would have built a bronze statue of her. Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bit of searching and the Mail Tribune, a print newspaper, has 3 articles about Agnes Baker Pilgrim[1][2][3]. If you add articles that mention her, it goes up to dozens. Please explain how these sources and the ones I've already mentioned do not meet either WP:BIO or WP:N, either of which are applicable. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With these sources, I think unbundle agnes is appropriate. I reserve a hypothetical !vote if she is separately nominated later. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of independent third party sourcing. Do not object to a merge into a single article; truly notable bios can be broken out as the need arises. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to closing admin - The hypothetical merge target AFD was just closed as no consensus, so remains a valid merge target. All 3 of the other individual member articles AFD which were nominated outside this bundle, were closed with a result of delete. [4] [5] [6] Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Til Eulenspiegel, For the sake of argument, I will temporarily agree with you that the group is notable. Is it notable enough, and is there enough unique information on each participant, to support 14 articles? It seems clear to me that if the group does pass GNG (or some other notability standard), it is a borderline case, and all of the information on EVERY participant, can easily be put into a single article, with a section for each participant. At most there is a handful of sentences that can be uniquely written about each memer. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that you are referring to the "Establishment of notability" section of WP:BIAS, but it appears to me that you are misusing that essay. Nowhere does it say that we are to ignore Wikipedia:Notability and just include the page anyway. It does say that we should make a special effort to find evidence of notability in the regions and languages of each of the grandmothers, and I certainly had WP:BIAS in mind when I searched and failed to find evidence that any of the grandmothers meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Do you have a specific non-English or regional source that you think we have overlooked? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took the first person in the list and found multiple 3rd party reliable independent non-self-published sources about her (see comments above). I didn't use any special databases or library searches, just Google. If this is someone that you tried especially hard to find sources for and determined that she had no notability whatsoever, I'm not sure how we can trust your claims that you have adequately vetted the entire list. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you a placing an undue burden of WP:BEFORE. 14 articles, all created by the same person, at the same time, using the same very weak sources, written with much identical non-encyclopedic content (try looking back a few revisions before they were cleaned up!) where 3 of the 14 ended up with an AFD result of delete. The burden of proof shifts to the keepers in my opinion. You may have met that burden (at least to unbundle, possibly to keep) in the case of Agnes, but one must take the entire set of circumstances and history of the articles into account when making a judgement about other editor's actions. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're largely correct about the history of the articles. However, I would argue that WP:BIAS suggests we should be conservative about applying WP:BUNDLE here. Leaders of indigenous communities are not going to be well represented on the internet. If it looks like any of these women may have notability outside of the council, we should split them off to get a fair hearing on their own merits. It looks like a few people have already mentioned Rita Pitka Blumenstein and Tsering Dolma Gyaltong. I would add Agnes Baker Pilgrim and possibly Mona Polacca. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, considering the context of the 14 articles, all created at the same time, by the same person, using the same sources, and with 90% the same content, where 3 of the person articles were nominated individually and came back with a result of delete, WP:BUNDLE was an entirely appropriate starting position for the remaining articles. That evidence comes to light retroactively indicating that some individual members may be notable and should be broken out is not evidence that any bad faith action was taken by the original nominator. Nobody is saying they are not notable BECAUSE they are in this group. They are saying that they are non notable IN SPITE of being in this group, because the group is not notable, and the bulk of the sources discussing the group or the individuals are not reliable, and in general not independent. (With exceptions as subsequently pointed out for Agnes etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:BUNDLE. It says "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately". The nomination did not do this. The nomination said "I will admit that I haven't read each article in great detail, and that a few may well have some notability independent of membership in this group". The nominator was required to see if any article could stand on its own merits before including it here. This nomination was improper. I am also concerned people may have been misled into thinking the book was self-published when I see no evidence that it was. I accept it is reasonably arguable that it may lack editorial independence but that is a subtler point and one that requires careful, individual consideration. The nomination is shaming on Wikipedia.Thincat (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying the book is self published. The book however is not independent, as the vast majority of it is the words of the subjects themselves, and the author explicitly states that she was serving as a translator and vessel for their ideas. Similarly, the two documentaries, were both created by the Center for Sacred Studies, the parent organization of the 13 grandmothers. (The 13 grandmothers were in fact brought together as part of the creation of the first documentary). The other major sources for the articles (as written at the time of nomination) were self published podcasts, which consisted of primary source interviews with the subjects. However, all of that is moot as the 13 grandmothers article survived its AFD as no consensus. The only question is are the 13 members sufficiently independantly notable separate of the 13 grandmothers to warrant individual rticles, vs having the few BLP/wiki/sourcable statements about them included in the grandmother's article. Even if you come to the conclusion that they are notable, the vast majority of that notability is directly attributed to the 13 grandmothers effort, and the individual articles will almost surely never be more than stubs. redirection and merges are the obvious solution. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination here gave more than a nudge and wink about the book being self-published: "the only real sources are publications of the council itself or its sponsoring organization, or in some instances other self-published sources". At the AFD for International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers the nominator said "Non notable group, self declared group, all references re either dead links, or blogs (excepting one catholic reporter ref), or self published items by the group".[7] This was when the article looked like this and a momentary glance would have shown the book was a major reference. I am affronted by this nomination. Thincat (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You imply that the nominators were not aware of, or did not take into account the book , which is patently false, it has been discussed extensively in the talk pages, and the other deletion discussions. Yes the book was a major reference, one which is mostly a primary source, and completely fails the notability/reliability requirements
    • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
    • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.
      • "It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.
    • "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.",
      • Every major employee of the publisher of this book is from the same family,
      • the book is presenting as fact
        • the 13 grandmothers are fulfilling ancient prophecies.
        • the imbalance of male and female energies could cause the destruction of ...the Earth

As the primary point of contention appears to be the notability or not of these individuals, separate from the group, I have posted notice of this AFD to the notability noticeboard. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#13_grandmothers_AFD Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is both a primary and a secondary source. The book consists of two sections: biographies of the women, and sections written by the grandmothers themselves. The biographies of the women were written by Carol Schaefer and qualify as independent 3rd party coverage. The sections written by the grandmothers do not. The reliability of the book is debatable, but disqualifying the entire book because it includes primary source material doesn't make sense. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The women inflame the air with sage ...
Sisters Rita and Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance
invoke an end to Star Wars, 3rd grade gangs, bedroom rape
Chant of babies from un-united states of Fallujah, Kabul,
Phoenix, Katmandu. The grandmothers share

words their elders didn’t — suicide, diabetes, radioactive
Seek Windows and webs that suspend age, that
mid-wife old ladies into shamans, laps into lap-tops
One grandma teaching another how mushrooms absorb
petroleum spills, how dollars green into trees, roots
detox crystal meth ... [1]

  1. ^ Markover, Fran (2008-11-19). "First Place Poetry: "The Grandmas"". IC View - The Magazine of Ithaca College. Retrieved 2013-06-17.
The documentary may or may not be high quality, but as it was produced BY the same organization that the 13 grandmothers is a part of , it is irrelevant as to showing notability. An article written by the subject again, gives no show of notability. The poem is from a local Ithica woman, shown on a minor college website. In any case, the poem is in reference to the 13 grandmothers, so is evidence of notability for the main article, and not for the 11 individual people. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: These individuals are clearly WP:NOTABLE. They are not simply mythic, they are REAL people who have significant accomplishments. Articles on indigenous people in general have many of these sourcing issues, as the "invisibility" problem faced by native people is an ongoing issue to begin with, but in light of historical significance and leadership, they clearly meet the standard far better than some guy who played professional cricket for one season in Sri Lanka of someplace. Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding one season cricketers. But that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I'd be happy to work with you to change the sports notability criteria to get rid of them! Indigenous people have sourcing problems, so does every high school garage band. Notability = sourcing. If there is a sourcing problem, there is by definition an notability problem. Yes, this is a form pf WP:BIAS - we are biased against people that don't have reliable sources talking about them. Collectively the 13 grandmothers group may have notability. What "in depth" sources are discussing these individuals, outside of the context of their membership in the 13? Notability is not inherited. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the WP:BIAS viewpoint's been noticed: "Opening up Wikipedia to include indigenous knowledge in its articles would likely be frowned upon by many, including the company and its thousands of contributors and editors worldwide." (from the Alaska Dispatch, How Wikipedia can help preserve indigenous knowledge from Far North). Is this really who we want to be as a group? Djembayz (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also clearly explained at WP:INHERITORG: "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and unbundle. Bundling the AfD suggests systemic bias, as Til Eulenspiegel notes above. The nominator admits to not having read all the articles carefully, and acknowledges that some of these individuals may have independent notability. So allow me to echo that "y'all serious?" above. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Agree. Systemic bias? The proposal to delete all these biographies as a bundle began on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. A group of women that sponsors an event to commemorate Northern Cheyenne Exodus doesn't belong on a "Fringe theory noticeboard". An invitation to write in the Washington Post religion section is dismissed as self publishing rather than an honor, the highly-ranked small college that awards a poetry prize on the topic is dismissed as "minor," the discussion itself is never posted at WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America, the editor who brings up the discussion at WP Systemic Bias and the Gender Gap mailing list gets hauled into ANI, and finally the reliable sourcing problems for indigenous peoples are compared to the sourcing problems of garage bands. Yikes.
Yes, some of these biographies should probably be rolled into the main article, but that's not what was proposed here. What's at issue in the proposal as written is thumbs up or down on the batch.Djembayz (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. Also, how again is getting a guest column in Washington Post, something that might understandably be taken a sign of some notability, being spun here as a sign of non-notability? I must be missing something along the way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article written by a member of the 13 is a sign of notability about the 13? While certainly one could personally infer notability by being chosen to do the guest article, it is directly contradicted by our notability policy "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone above arguing that every person bundled here is notable? If so, I overlooked it. This is precisely why several of us are asking for the AfD to be unbundled. At least two of these figures seem to merit examination for independent notability. It's bizarre logic to say that because some members of the bundle are non-notable, they all are, regardless of the evidence produced so far. People who write become notable through their publications; that is different from using their own writings as sources about themselves. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under the impression that bundling somehow constrains the closing administrator to "bundle" the result in some way. It does not. The closing administrator can look at the discussion and close with something like this:
Result:
  • No evidence of notably for Dopey and sleepy: Delete.
  • Sleepy, Grumpy, and Doc are clearly notable; Keep with prejudice (meaning that immediate re-listing is prohibited).
  • No consensus on Bashful, Happy and Sneezy; Keep without prejudice (meaning they can can be but are not required to be immediately nominated for deletion separately)."
Bundling simply means that we are discussing them all at once because they are closely related. The closing administrator is expected to read all comments and use his brain when writing up the result / closing comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but my exasperation was with comments implying that the non-notability of most members of the group was somehow transferrable to others who may merit individual consideration. That's why I have perhaps framed my view injudiciously. It does seem to me that the size of the group AfD unnecessarily fragments and confuses discussion threads for the members who may have independent notability. I don't see the bundling as more efficient. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common misconception to think that something like that matters. It does not. If this was like an election, then someone who posts a bogus argument might sway undecided voters, and you would have reason to be exasperated. Instead, this is like an experienced judge listening to testimony and giving a ruling. Bogus arguments will be ignored, as will responses to bogus arguments. The only thing that matters is whether one or more of the 14 numbered items at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion apply. Let's say I post the following: "All of the seven Dwarfs are non-notable because they are short". All you have to do is point out that none of the 14 reasons for deletion involves height. No need to post anything beyond that. If I say "I looked, and cannot find evidence of notability for any of them", a correct response might be "what about Doc? He has a Nobel Prize in homeopathy[86] and is the king of Elbonia." of course I could counter with "Your citation #86 is to Dwarfs Quarterly, published by D. Dwarf with S. White as the executive editor. And it has exactly seven paid subscribers, all at the same mailing address." The point here is that we would both be talking about #8 on the list of reasons for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything the least bit genuinely "logical" about your frequent analogies toward Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, something that has zero bearing on what we are really discussing. All you are doing with this type of clearly opinionated rhetoric, and argument by silly analogies, is letting readers know from what tremendous distance your personal point of view is coming, and this does help to explain why your personal biases make it so hard for you to acknowledge the possibility of other points of view on this beside your own - when it comes to what you patronistically want to prevent any wikipedia reader from being able to learn about on wikipedia, it seems your own personal biases are king here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You, know, if you could switch off the automatic rant-reflex you might find that what Guy is saying is not inconsistent with your aspirations. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are even results for "Indigenous grandmothers" that show up on Google Scholar. It says Mona Polacca is cited in Ecologist 2008 by Nicola Graydon. There is a book Living Indigenous Leadership: Native Narratives on Building Strong Communities by Carolyn Kenny, UBC Press, academically publishing information about the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers in chapter 6. When the bar keeps magically getting raised higher than the highest thing found, it's not a good sign, because nothing then would ever be high enough to satisfy someone who's already made up their mind to do away with it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbundle It's a logical fallacy to say that all of these articles are equally notable/non-notable (not that anyone's saying that explicitly, but it's certainly implied by bundling them together). Each article should be decided by its own merits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbundle. Some may be borderline notable, like Agnes "water can hear" Pilgrim, others palpably are not (Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance seems to have driven a truck and "hosted a workshop for girls on how to properly cut buffalo meat and dry it". Awesome.) We shouldn't keep Beatrice because she's bundled with the others, and we shouldn't lose others 'cos they're bundled with Beatrice. I'm unconvinced by Guy's argument that some Solomonic Judge can usefully sort through this debate to sort the sheep from the goats in each individual case. @Til. I see no evidence that a bar is being raised especially high for these people. I think the 13 grandmothers are notable, but that does not mean that each gran deserves her own article. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found an academic reference to Beatrice being cited for her notability also: Indigenous-Centered Pedagogies: Strategies for Teaching Native American Literature and Culture by Annette Portillo, [8] in Vol 42, No 1 (2013) Winter/Spring 2013, of the CEA Forum journal published by the College English Association. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the content referring to her is "For example, while teaching at a liberal arts college in Ohio, I worked with a Native student organization that invited several speakers to campus. The first was Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance, a member of ‘The International Council of the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, who spoke about the “Past, Present and Future of Lakota Culture." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And according to you, this reference is somehow illegitimate because ___...? (fill in the blank) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not illegitimate per-se, but "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" and pointing out that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, where on earth do you get the idea that one passing reference to a person in a source means that they deserve to have an article on Wikipedia? I could find many more references to myself and possibly to my next door neighbour. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the notability rules seems to be to prevent articles from being written about a "nobody". The reference I have shared is good rational evidence that this person is indeed a "somebody", and not a "nobody". But the letter of the laws is being used to make it flexible and a matter of the assessment of some editors to say "No, that doesn't count, she is still a nobody anyway, because we wrote the rules". So I see the letter of the rules being used for a different purpose than the spirit of the rules here. I would like to add my voice explicitly to those who have said this entire mess of an "AfD" should be unbundled and started over on a case by case basis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are degrees of "somebodyness". There are many many millions of people who have given talks at conferences, for example. They do not deserve to have their own articles because of that. It's got nothing to do with who "wrote the rules". The rules were not written by some clique. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as notable strike double vote. I've been sitting back on this discussion, but I am very disturbed that while a young male footballplayer from East Bumf--k who played soccer for a season before blowing out his knees can be deemed notable on WP, a group of highly respected women of color and elders to boot are deemed "nobodies." This is troublesome and reflects a systemic bias problem on wikipedia. Many, many Native American sources are oral in nature and the written materials are often done as something of an afterthought by younger and more tech-savvy tribal members who are neither scholars nor journalists. These articles all need to be kept. End of story. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[note]: the above editor, Montanabw, has already recorded a "keep" vote/opinion above (date stamped 17:08, 17 June 2013). Paul B (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, Til Eulenspiegel and Montanabw, how can we be sure if they are "highly respected women of color and elders to boot" if the sources aren't reliable?24.22.129.215 (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the problem with yours and Til's argument. They are not being sidelined in some way because they are "women of color", they are being promoted for that very reason. In some cases it seems to be their only claim to significance. What would be the chances that my "highly respected" grandmother should get on a council? None. Because no-one has invented an International Council of Welsh Grandmothers expounding the "wisdom" of inherited Welsh rural lore. One could just as easily create a Council of Jewish Grandmothers made of elderly women who just happen to be Jewish and grandmothers, and are "respected" "wisdom keepers" of the Jewish people. If they happened to be grandmothers from, say, a Norwegian Dakotan farming community they would never have been picked to join this council would they? In many cases these seem to be quite ordinary people whose sole claim to be distinguished from the millions of other respected grandmothers in the world is that they happen to come from particular communities, ones that have been granted access to Great Truths of Eternal Wisdom in the imagination of New Age culture. Of course none of that would matter if they had achieved notability through it. Many people achieve fame and status for dubious reasons, including perhaps footballers from East Bumf--k. But there is no reason to believe many of these people have achieved it. Paul B (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is really the core of the problem with the whole thing. This council is the creation of one white upper middle woman and is being promoted through her efforts and that of the white upper middle author of the book, which was written in apparent collaboration with the council. There may be some slight possibility of some independent notability of one or two of the members (Agnes Pilgrim is the only one I'm getting the least positive impression for), but everything else seems to arise out of the publicity efforts of the white women backing this group. I get no sense that anyone out of this very small circle would care about them if the organization were not being pushed upon them. That may reflect systematic bias, but it also reflects the failure of the creators of the group to catch the fancy of the sort of people who are ordinarily interested in this sort of thing. In no small degree, the book in particular represents the systematic bias of the sort of person who thinks that white 1st world men are really out of touch with Ultimate Reality and the Right Ways of the World. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do no attach arguments to me that I never made, thank you. I haver never said one word about the race of any of these women and I have a hard time understanding how such an argument could possibly be relevant to their notability or non-notability. I am arguing "Systemic Bias", that is, "Article X isn't notable to me in my little world, therefore it should not be notable for anyone else either, and any mentions it has received in press are likewise not notable to me, so anyone else to whom this subject may seem notable is just out of luck and will have to get more detailed info on it elsewhere, not on wikipedia where it's not welcome, because I said so." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Til Eulenspiegel, is that the sources aren't reliable. I don't mean that in a game-internal sense, I mean literally unreliable, as in filled with demonstrably false claims about aboriginal cultures and about the members themselves. Look closely. Some of these people are not who they are claimed to be.24.22.129.215 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what are we deciding here? Whether they are really who they claim to be, or whether they meet GNG? They can be totally not who they claim to be at all, and yet still meet notability guidelines. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, 24.22.129.215, given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we can't be totally sure of anything. However, in some traditional cultures, people past a certain age who are attempting to exert leadership by example, dedicating themselves to community work, and leading prayers, are generally respected as having assumed the "elder" role. And again, in some cultures, it's considered polite to treat a person claimed to be making an attempt at the "elder" role as a venerable and respected individual-- i.e. "inherently notable." Observing the custom of "that's a respected elder" can improve behaviors on all sides, and with luck, prevent us from growing up to be a grouchy, nasty, complaining and cantankerous old person ourself someday. In some cultures we give the older ladies holding prayer meetings respect even if they aren't elders on their tribal councils, trained medicine people, etc. just because that's what you do around older people, no matter how difficult they may be.
However, as the comments here have pointed out, different groups and cultures may approach the question of the cultural and religious role of "elders" in different ways. Clearly the comment, "But these are elders!" may not make much sense to urban computer enthusiasts who have never gotten to know a traditional Native American elder in person. It's probably time for those who understand Wikipedia's policies to craft some new language regarding reliable sources for indigenous people, especially for peoples with oral cultures and traditions.
Lacking time, patience, and wikilawyering expertise necessary to to shepherd this proposed policy change through our inscrutable processes, one (hopefully final) thought:
If our rules mean Wikipedia omits mention of traditional elders and the activities of New Age white ladies as not notable, I guess we'll just have to take consolation in the fact that our encyclopedia remains a great place to answer any questions we may have about more down-to-earth topics like Flying Spaghetti Monster and ultimate reality (a concept invented by white guys, who knew? :) (????) Djembayz (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“It's probably time for those who understand Wikipedia's policies to craft some new language regarding reliable sources for indigenous people, especially for peoples with oral cultures and traditions.”
Good news, Djembayz: there is actually a whole field dedicated to documenting and understanding native cultures, including mythologies and folklore.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not state that we can't be certain of anything. Perhaps we should stop learning physics from Shambhala press.24.22.129.215 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with redirects) — since the parent article exists, it makes sense to incorporate whatever good content there is into it as recommended by WP:NOPAGE, yielding a coherent standalone article with contextualized content, rather than the handful of stubby and AfD-attracting ones we have currently. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as Djembayz appears to be the most senior Wikimedian present, it seems appropriate to highlight this edit:
“On the 17th of March 1959, the day that the Dalai Lama began his escape from the Norbulingka|Norbulingka Palace, The Tibetan Women’s Association, of which Tsering was a Founding Member carried out a street demonstration with 500 of its members. Due to this, Tsering is said to have been 'instrumental' in creating the diversion to get Dalai Lama out of Tibet in 1959. Tsering is also the sister of the Dalai Lama."
Every single claim in that paragraph is false. She was not a founder of the TIbetan Women's association, she did not help get the Dalai Lama out of Tibet, and she is not the Dalai Lama's sister. This is what happens when you are credulous and believe what you read in unreliable sources. As an officer of a Wikimedia chapter, I wish I could say that I expect better from you. You should take some responsibility and apologize to the readers whom you've misled.24.22.129.215 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with your assertions, but how do you know they are false? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real Tsering Dolma died in 1964.[9][10][11]24.22.129.215 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even supposing they are false, again, are we here at afd to make a determination of "The Truth", or to determine if the subjects have any kind of notability? Lots of people who made demonstrably false claims, have turned out to be notable anyway, at least enough for an article. Gaumata allegedly claimed to be someone he wasn't, for instance, but it doesn't diminish his notability. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:36, 25 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/the_remaining_members_of_the_council_of_grandmothers&oldid=1166302324"