Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Ernestine Declercq
I'm the one who wrote the original "delete" response above, since modified to "merge", and while I still think that that is the correct answer under our byzantine guidelines, I do also believe that there is systemic bias in those guidelines (and many people of good faith trying to interpret and follow them fairly and, to be sure, some who are not). I agree with The Vintage Feminist that this article is an interesting addition to history. I particularly enjoy studying the history of over-looked and marginalized peoples and our notability guidelines make it difficult to add such stories and help perpetuate the marginalization. I can't speak to the motivation of the nominator, and I assume good faith not just because of policy but because I, myself, chose to look at this article because I hoped to save it. That's what I like to do; find good references for obscure or overlooked topics. I spent a lot of time and I was unable to find an RS that even demonstrates that Sister Declerq (herself, as opposed to a group of religious) was at Uvira and I couldn't. (Which doesn't mean tthere isn't something I missed.) And I fully believe that she was there and that she did negotiate with the rebels and nobody ever bothered to write about this incredible thing she did partly because she was just a nun (more systemic bias). I have no good idea about what to do about what I'll call "historical reference bias" except maybe suggest that we need to have some sort of notability leeway for marginalized people and subjects. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we repealed  and just put refimprove tags, as needed, on any biography where we can verify that the person existed. Special:Contributions/24.151.10.165|24.151.10.165
— [[User talk:24.151.10.165|talk]]), 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTMEMORIAL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)