Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Davis-Cates

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. Courcelles 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Davis-Cates[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP of an individual that seems to fail WP:MANOTE. The external links are for her eulogy, scholarship fund, and memorial--these all fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Article has been tagged for a lack of notability for over a year and a half and there still are no sources or real indications of notability. When this article was discussed at the June 30, 2010 martial arts article review, no support was given for keeping it. Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has problems due to lack of references. The person described in this article (if the claims are true) is notable. I do not believe that deleting an article is a solution to fixing an article lacking references: this article is fixable. jmcw (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The cornerstone of Wikipedia is verifiability, which means there must be reliable sources. Also, what claims in the article showed notability to you? High ranks alone don't show notability or everyone who's ever created their own system would have an article.Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering Practice 3: 'Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;'.
    - Have the people here read this article? This is not about someone running a dojo in their garage; it is about someone who is purported to have performed much public service. jmcw (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you read the reliable, independent sources confirming all those assertions? If you have, would you mind sharing them with us so that any degree of notability could be established? Presuming that it can be, of course, because there's nothing at all notable - as Wikipedia defines it - about helping out with Special Olympics, conducting self-defense clinics, doing demonstrations at pep rallies and all the other "public service" you infer from the article. Ravenswing 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presuming the claims are true - and that's a large "if" - so what? American martial arts dojos hand out Umpteenth Dan Black-and-Blue Belts of Sublime Ineffable Mastery like candy bars on Halloween. A claim of notability is just that - a "claim" - without reliable sources to back it up. There's no evidence of the same, nor evidence this subject passes the GNG. A Google search turned up nothing but blogs, Wiki mirrors and dojo websites. There are zero hits on Google News. Ravenswing 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a black belt is a laudable achievement, there is no significant coverage about her in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources support notability. The article says she's notable because she was the highest ranked woman in an art with 3000 practioners, but I'd say that's less notable than being the mayor of a town and they fail WP:N. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable sources that show she's notable, nor do I see any achievements in the article that show notability. The community service mentioned in the article is typical of all the martial arts schools I've been involved with. Jmcw, I don't understand why wanting reliable sources is "wikilawyering". Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanting reliable sources for every article is a goal of Wikipedia. Deleting articles because they have no reliable source is (IMO) wikilawyering or gaming the system. The art of wikipedia lies in differentiating between topics that have not yet reliable sources and those with high improbability of having reliable sources. In this case, we have several references that are not strong enough: I do not find it higly improbable that they exist. I believe that articles in this gray zone should be appropriately tagged (to warn readers) and allowed to exist. jmcw (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is in direct conflict with WP:V, which holds, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source," as well as including this quote from Jimbo: "'I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.'" This is far from "wikilawyering;" it is obeying the fundamental content policy of Wikipedia. If you disagree with it, your only recourse is to hit the WP:V talk page and see if you can get consensus around making it optional. Ravenswing 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What unreliable sources do you believe hint at there being reliable sources to be found that can establish notability? Of the references provided, there is only one with a working link for me, and that's the USADojo obituary. But based on the URLs for the dead links, it is quite clear that these items are far from independent of the subject. My own search did not turn up much of anything beyond automated aggregation sites, so I see no hint that sources are out there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (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.