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.
Comment. While I can understand why the nominator refers to BIO1E, I personally don't understand either of these arguments. In terms of "as written the sourcing is inadequate", it is worth noting that notability discussions are not based on the content or the sourcing in the article (at time of nom). But on the sourcing available to support the article/claim (outside this project). In terms of "same as Arne", it is worth noting that Moore is represented in several statues, a number of books (granted several fictionalised), a number of things "named after her" (from software programs to awards to "sponsorship levels" of the Statue of Liberty - Ellis Island Foundation), a significant volume of news coverage, etc. The subjects are not equivalent.
Guliolopez (
talk)
03:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I had seen that other AfD nomination. But I don't see how its relevant myself. Or how "the article on X is nominated for deletion, and so therefore should the article on Y" isn't an example of an
WP:OSE argument. Anyway, I've offered my own (hopefully policy-based) opinion below. I'll shut up now :)
Guliolopez (
talk)
04:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. While I understand the inclination to point to BIO1E here ("subject is primarily notable for one thing"), as noted in
WP:BIO1E itself (as also highlighted by
Beccaynr), where the "event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". This is absolutely the case here. As indicated by the significant volume of coverage of the subject (and several statues and
any number of books and the like). A subsection or footnote in the Ellis Island (or anywhere else for that matter) would be a misrepresentation of the significance assigned by the sources/coverage/etc. Mine is a firm "keep" recommendation.
Guliolopez (
talk)
02:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, while I do see your point of WP:1E, I think
WP:NOT1E applies here as it fails the third criteria, I think the event is significant enough to warrant her own article. Her legacy is impactful as noted in the Legacy section of the article.
Heart(talk)04:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I see four books written about her, I see a statue built to her. The plaque on the statue is in a public place and could be used as a source. BLP1E does not apply for two reasons. 1 - BLP1E is part of BLP and BLP is about living people. She is dead. So I don't think it is applicable. Even if it was applicable, the books are written about her life, not just her arrival, additionally even if you didn't accept those points, she is notable for her arrival and then for someone making a statue, two separate events. Coverage is
WP:SUSTAINED.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn. I have seen your arguments, folks, and have come to the conclusion that Annie Moore is notable enough beyond
WP:BIO1E to be on Wikipedia. My apologies. Cheers!
Fakescientist800017:20, 16 April 2022 (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.
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.
Comment. While I can understand why the nominator refers to BIO1E, I personally don't understand either of these arguments. In terms of "as written the sourcing is inadequate", it is worth noting that notability discussions are not based on the content or the sourcing in the article (at time of nom). But on the sourcing available to support the article/claim (outside this project). In terms of "same as Arne", it is worth noting that Moore is represented in several statues, a number of books (granted several fictionalised), a number of things "named after her" (from software programs to awards to "sponsorship levels" of the Statue of Liberty - Ellis Island Foundation), a significant volume of news coverage, etc. The subjects are not equivalent.
Guliolopez (
talk)
03:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I had seen that other AfD nomination. But I don't see how its relevant myself. Or how "the article on X is nominated for deletion, and so therefore should the article on Y" isn't an example of an
WP:OSE argument. Anyway, I've offered my own (hopefully policy-based) opinion below. I'll shut up now :)
Guliolopez (
talk)
04:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. While I understand the inclination to point to BIO1E here ("subject is primarily notable for one thing"), as noted in
WP:BIO1E itself (as also highlighted by
Beccaynr), where the "event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". This is absolutely the case here. As indicated by the significant volume of coverage of the subject (and several statues and
any number of books and the like). A subsection or footnote in the Ellis Island (or anywhere else for that matter) would be a misrepresentation of the significance assigned by the sources/coverage/etc. Mine is a firm "keep" recommendation.
Guliolopez (
talk)
02:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, while I do see your point of WP:1E, I think
WP:NOT1E applies here as it fails the third criteria, I think the event is significant enough to warrant her own article. Her legacy is impactful as noted in the Legacy section of the article.
Heart(talk)04:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I see four books written about her, I see a statue built to her. The plaque on the statue is in a public place and could be used as a source. BLP1E does not apply for two reasons. 1 - BLP1E is part of BLP and BLP is about living people. She is dead. So I don't think it is applicable. Even if it was applicable, the books are written about her life, not just her arrival, additionally even if you didn't accept those points, she is notable for her arrival and then for someone making a statue, two separate events. Coverage is
WP:SUSTAINED.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn. I have seen your arguments, folks, and have come to the conclusion that Annie Moore is notable enough beyond
WP:BIO1E to be on Wikipedia. My apologies. Cheers!
Fakescientist800017:20, 16 April 2022 (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.