Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ida Genung

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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ida Genung

Ida Genung (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The article has not asserted the notability of the person in question, and many people have lived a 'pioneer lifestyle', or had great 'gardening skills'. It doesn't mean they deserve a Wikipedia article CloudNine 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Calling someone "a regional celebrity" does not mean they're notable (and I suspect that Peeples Valley, Arizona is not a particluarly important 'region'). I can find nothing in this 'biography' that is out of the ordinary, given the time and location, and nothing on the topics for which she is supposed to be famous - healing and gardening. Interesting lifestory of someone who lived to a good age in sometimes trying conditions. Encyclopaedia worthy? No. Delete. Emeraude 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. A "regional celebrity" suggests a claim to notability so it can't be speedied, but searching for "Ida Genung" on Google comes up with Wikipedia mirrors and not a lot else. Admittedly, there may be only offline sources because she died quite a while ago, but the burden is on anyone wishing to keep. Without sources, this person is not-notable. Trebor 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the refrences are to no so notable sources and the ghits are mostly wikipedia mirrors.--Tainter 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Improve I think that this is a diamond in the rough. I'm seeing about 300 g-hits for a long-dead pioneer. The terms "gardening skills" and "regional celebrity" were unfortunate choices by the author -- shoot the author, but don't chuck the subject. Let's work on improving this worthy article! --Kevin Murray 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There are about 100 unique hits, and they are almost all mirrors of Wikipedia. The mention given to her in the link provided is pretty trivial. The book is more interesting, but to be notable this needs multiple non-trivial sources. Unless this is further sourced, notability isn't established. Trebor 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe the subject is worthwhile but the article isn't. I'm tired of pulling junk like this out of the fire. House of Scandal 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that; it is a lot of work. Still this shouldn't be a reason for deletion --Kevin Murray 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Both sources already in the article are reliable. Google web tests are essentially useless for historical figures, which is why they are not part of WP:BIO or any of our other notability criteria. Google Scholar and Google Books are much more useful, but didn't help in this case. Looking at the article on the book, we she she gets one of 16 chapters in it. Using special:booksources by clicking on the ISBN, we can go to the Library of Congress website and learn that the book has 137 pages, so there should be roughly 8 pages on her in that book. Local history museums are generally a source of content that is at least as reliable as the typical newspaper, and that is what the linked web-source is. Sources don't have to be notable, the article's topic does. However, the history museum webpage is only a passing mention, so we only have one source thus far. GRBerry 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable historic person. Interesting article! Dwain 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. If she is a notable historic person, could you provide the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. Trebor 07:44, 25 January 2007 (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.