Deletion of Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination)

Comment: all. Superbly written articles on a completely non-notable subjects - failing , , and . All 3 are sourced to a few pages in a self-published book by an otherwise obscure author, and local Welsh newspapers "police blotter" reports. The single  source is not a RS, and in any case we would typically require multiple secondary sources even if it was. The local  newspaper crime/obit/marriage reporting is not grounds for notability - if it were, a humongous number of '''petty criminals''' with a few convictions that are strung together from reports such as this: http://www.bristolpress.com/BP-Obituaries/322925/police-man-drove-stolen-car-to-court-for-stolen-car-charge Police: Man drove stolen car to court for stolen car charge, Bristol Press, 8 March 2018, http://www.bristolpress.com/BP-Bristol+News/323010/man-with-history-of-drug-sale-convictions-charged-again Man with history of drug sale convictions charged again, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018, or http://www.bristolpress.com/BP-Bristol+News/323015/bristol-woman-pleads-not-guilty-to-prostitution-charge Bristol woman pleads not guilty to prostitution charge, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018 would become notable on the basis of strung together local reporting (born, married, crime-conviction-crime-conviction-..., died). This is exactly how the author of the self-published book wrote it: starting with a mug shot in the archives and stringing together newspaper and court record reports https://glamarchives.gov.uk/events/1526/ {{tq|Drawing on photographs, mugshots and contemporary newspapers accounts this book explores the crimes of theft and of violence, often through drink or other social causes, which filled the police courts and prisons, and tells the stories of the lives of these extraordinary women who survived through adversity.}}. Per http://www.swanseashop.co.uk/shop/swanseas-bad-girls/ the author was {{tq|Inspired by mugshots of female prisoners from the Swansea Prison collection at the West Glamorgan Archive Service, author Elizabeth Belcham was inspired to delve into the lives of these women and discover how they had come to end up on the wrong side of the law
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PERP||WP:BASIC||WP:SECONDARY||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: a claim of "importance or significance" isn't necessary for a biography to meet  (though there is generally a correlation), and I see no arguments for deletion other than noting the lack of such a claim of importance or significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  by an anonymous IP may be the least persuasive !vote ever, but here it is. This article does not meet the letter of  but it does meet the spirit. The book by Elizabeth Belcham would constitute  in a secondary source (multiple sources are generally expected, but not required) if it satisfied one of the exceptions at , particularly "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." Belcham, as a professional archivist with over twenty years experience in her field, is an established expert in her field in my opinion and she is not being used to source extraordinary claims -- in fact, the ordinariness of her claims appears to be the problem cited by many proposing deletion. However, I can find no evidence that she has been published in a third party publication, so the wikilawyers will win this one. I submit, however, that her archival experience satisfies the spirit of alternative indicia of expertise and reliability recognized by the policy. Deleting these articles will in no way improve the encyclopedia. Special:Contributions/24.151.116.12|24.151.116.12
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RSSELF)

Comment: all as they pass the .  Notability is not a matter of importance or significance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: all. Some of the newspaper reports such as http://newspapers.library.wales/view/3348854/3348860/107/ this are more than passing mentions and are not primary (they are interpretively reporting what other people said in court).  and  do not deprecate local sources. Is there any evidence that the book is not reliable? To me it seems to be confirmed by the press reports. Our principle for "notability" is not that we decide based on our own opinions of importance but on whether a topic has been written about in multiple, independent, reliable sources – these sources are not in themselves required to be "notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: or '''Merge'''. , ''To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.'' The argument that she is illustrative of her class doesn't satisfy the condition for an encyclopedic article since it neither defines what that class is or offers any context. If this article were included in an article on Victorian prostitution, say, and explained why she was typical then there really wouldn't be a problem.Twospoonfuls
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: The articles rely heavily on newspapers of local significance and a book of questionable literary merit as such the subjects cannot be considered notable even outside their hometown (). As such the people described in the articles are no different from any other common early 20th century British prostitute. They are not related and had never interacted with any people worthy of an article. Had they been men, common housewives or were born later into the century the article would have been speedily deleted without a single objection (), yet people want to keep it simply for the quality of its prose. With a variety of sources available one might write millions upon millions of articles on people of their caliber, we DO NOT need that to get an insight of her profession or era when articles such as Prostitution in the United Kingdom exist. I frankly do not see how the procedure used in  cannot be extended to prostitutes. Wikipedia's obsession with and glorification of criminals not matter how petty they are has reached its crescendo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTOBITUARY||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: I have spent countless hours going through 19th century newspapers, and they are full of lurid and sensational accounts of crime. If I wanted to, I could exhume many long dead and forgotten criminals who were far more notable in their time than Lynch. But for whatever reason, these criminals faded into complete obscurity (like Lynch), so I don't think it's my job as a Wikipedian to confer notability upon them. That would amount of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is a difficult case and I am torn. I can understand the arguments put forward by a number of those !voting to delete, specifically that "anyone could be an example of something" or "this is just a collection of newspaper reports". But then the point here is that someone ''has'' written about Lynch et al and ''not'' you and me – Belcham (the newspapers thus become 'filler' information and are not necessary to establish notabilitym which potentially resolves the second issue). WP:PERP is trumped by GNG. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary resource and hence it is not up to us to decide that one book or subject is not sufficient to establish notability just because it's not what individual editors consider "notability" (the word) to mean. otability, the Wikipedia concept, depends on coverage in reliable secondary sources, and we should not be selective in using these to form articles on Wikipedia even if we don't think the subject matter is particularly notable in a subjective sense. Hence I want to lean keep in this case. I want to see this article kept and I applaud the intent behind and the prose and research which form it. The only thing that is stopping me is that I am not convinced Belcham is actually a reliable source, and that to me is important in maintaining the integrity of WP as a source of knowledge
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Nothing in any of the above has convinced me to change my opinion since the previous AfD; the articles meet the |general notability guide
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject clearly passes&nbsp;the |general notability guideline, which reads {{tq|If a topic has received&nbsp;significant coverage&nbsp;in&nbsp;reliable sources&nbsp;that are&nbsp;independent&nbsp;of the subject, it is&nbsp;presumed&nbsp;to be suitable for a stand-alone article or&nbsp;list}}, and since it contains secondary sourcing it fulfills the requirement {{tq|of&nbsp;at least one&nbsp;secondary source}} within it.&nbsp;Both academic texts ({{Tq|When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources}}) and contemporary newspapers({{tq|"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact}} are reliable sources, and provide the sole sourcing of the article:&nbsp;{{tq|Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally}}. {{pb}}It's worth remembering that notability on Wikipedia does not require a person to have been notable in their lifetime, or even to have done anything notable. {{Pb}} Incidentally, the perceived quality of the article is irrelevant:&nbsp;{{tq|if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability}}. Over all, the nomination seems to be confusing notability with individual significance, but of course,&nbsp;{{tq|notability does not&nbsp;necessarily&nbsp;depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity}}.{{pb}} The nomination itself is flawed: "perhaps a self-published book" is nullified by the "perhaps
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: An editor's writing proficiency has absolutely ''nothing'' to do with notability. How is |GNG at all met by an article almost entirely (aside from a self-published book) composed of |primary documents? Those documents, by the way, are mainly 2-3 line blurbs. Perhaps because the article's creator is highly respected or because the subjects are women some editors are willing to give a free pass, but you are doing no one--women or Wikipedia-- any favors by ignoring inclusion guidelines you would apply anywhere else. GNG is ''not met'', we |are not the news (even old news!), and |original research--no matter how well done--is still just that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARY||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:OR)

Comment: More than one user has used  as justification for keeping these articles. It seems to me that editors arguing for inclusion on such a basis are going against the spirit of  and are using more of an  rationale. Note that  states {{tq|If a rule prevents you from '''improving''' or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.}} Note the improving. If this article is included then it would result in many, many other articles about similarly non-notable people being created. This would not result in an improving of the encyclopedia, but rather in a degrading of the encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IAR)

Comment: Fails . The subject is definitely not a renowned figure and neither the motivation or execution of the crimes are unusual; the subject committed a string of petty crimes, that's it. If that is the level of notablity needed to have an article on this site then it might as well include everything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: per .  A lot of editors I respect have opined that this article meets the GNG, but I simply don't see how, and such a claim is a dangerous one, a slippery slope towards having lots of BLP1E-type articles for deceased persons.  But I don't think we should delete articles that make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia just because we are worried about someone trying the same thing in a less competent way.  A long time ago that was our argument against having articles for every school on earth, and we were wrong about that one.  Most of them are crappy but the encyclopedia has endured
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)