Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhoda Jenkins Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhoda_Jenkins

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. This is a recreation of a previously deleted page - [1]. As with the previous page, this one contains copyright material. It may be possible to write an article on this person, however it wouold need to comply with all our inclusion criteria and policies. As the material on User talk:Jenkins.sahlin.e's user page is also subject to copyright, that will also have to be removed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoda Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod: no indication of notability at all. The prod was removed because of allegedly in-depth coverage. But besides the obituary, the only reasonably in-depth coverage cited in the article is the New York Times human interest story "Growing up female in a feminist family" from 1979, which consists of a short bio of the subject. (The other cited article merely mentions the subject in passing.) Typically human interest stories do not, in my opinion, contribute to the notability of a subject for the purposes of an encyclopedia. In this case, the NYTimes article doesn't really discuss any notable accomplishments as an activist: Jenkins donated some money to fund the Equal Rights Ammendment, joined a local NOW chapter, and presented a paper at a women's conference. This seems barely significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The current version of the article reads like a memorial, and at first glance I was expecting to endorse the proposed deletion. But a further search for sources reveals a surprisingly extensive amount of coverage about her, as shown at GNews[2][3] and GBooks.[4] The NYT articles are examples (and I do not agree that the first one is mere "human interest" or that the second one is merely a mention "in passing") but as the search results demonstrate there is quite a lot more (much of it behind pay walls). Rhoda Barney Jenkins may not have been a particularly notable architect, but all this coverage suggests that she may have been notable for her contributions to women's rights and history. Or maybe some of this content should be merged to the too-short article about her mother, or in some other way we could preserve the information about her and her distinguished family. At the very least, there is too much here for this content to disappear via the invisible prod process, without some community attention. I'll be interested in other opinions from those who look through the potential sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. It seems based on this coverage that the primary reason these sources mention her is because of her mother and grandmother. She's not notable as an architect, and despite winning a NOW award doesn't seem to be especially notable as a feminist activist. Most of the GBooks hits seem to be acknowledgements rather than nontrivial coverage (e.g., "Rhoda Barney Jenkins permitted me to examine and publish photographs...", "Courtesy of her daughter Rhoda Barney Jenkins..."). She seems to be significant largely as a primary source about the activities of her mother during the suffrage movement. Aside from google searches, is there any actual reason that this person is notable in herself? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. She seems like an interesting society lady and architect, but no more notable than anyone else in those groups. Her ancestors were notable, but notability is not inherited. --Coemgenus 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Keep If she served as a primary source for historical books as stated above, this does sound notable. Could Sławomir add information on writers citing her as a source for their information? Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lordy be, what an ugly mess. This should be rescued and is an obvious keep - exactly the sort of article of interest to women that we need to keep. However, it can be better sourced and fixed up with a bit of incubation and TLC. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable given sources mentioned in previous discussion, irrespective of any present quality problems in the article. Chester Markel (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per WP:NOTINHERITED which states "If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that" and "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.", merge any useful content of the article into Harriot Eaton Stanton Blatch and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. All sources I've found lack "significant coverage" stated in the WP:GNG as "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. I cant find any source that covers her directly in here and here, which are google book results for Rhoda Jenkins and Rhoda Barney Jenkins, which are discussed previously. I cant even find a single source where she alone received significant coverage, apart from this sad news. I'll be more than happy if someone can point a source that covers her accomplishments. Nimuaq (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She won a notable award, and recognition of her peers by being inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame [5] Dream Focus 12:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find her here Search the Hall or on any other source than the paper. Her great-grandmother is honored in 1973 ([6]) I guess the paper meant to become a member of the hall rather than honored by the hall. Nimuaq (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only sources cited in the article itself are for her parentage (one of them a paid-obit), and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This also applies to being inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame for being a descendent of a famous suffragette. No evidence of "significant coverage" has been presented, nor achievements of sufficient significance to qualify for WP:BIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed my mind to delete, subject to future re-creation. I am unable to verify that she has actually been inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame, or has gotten any other such honors. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2011 (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.