Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boa Sr.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boa Sr.

[edit]
Boa Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having experience with the world's oldest people articles, I'm not certain that just being the last surviving person with memory of a particular language is sufficient to pass the WP:ANYBIO standard (it's not a "well-known and significant award or honor" and I don't think we can say that the *person* has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" unless we have evidence that the person did something to help spread the language or further) and otherwise the reliable sources here (I'm excluding this page) are all basically obituaries that are kind of WP:BIO1E about the death. All the sources are basically in the context of her having a memory of a language and I don't think that should WP:INHERIT to the person who spoke about the language. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep impeccable references and passes WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG trumps all other guidelines. Obituary from the BBC website amongst others. WP:ANYBIO is about lowering the bar for people that do not meet the GNG. WP:BIO1E is about tangential people mentioned in passing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic being her, the coverage is not independent of the actual subject which is the language that is now lost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the BBC and the Guardian are self-published by a dead woman. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I miswrote that terribly. Obviously the sources are independent of her. But is this coverage about her as the topic or the loss of the language? There's basically two paragraphs about her rather than about the linguist and the language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a single source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her only claim to "fame" was that she was the last rememberer (she hadn't actually spoken the language for a long time). She did nothing to promote the language or preserve it. She simply outlived everyone else who remembered some of the language. Longevity isn't a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you look at the obituaries, they exist only because she was the last speaker, not because of anything else she did. There are no references to her in scholarly literature or in the media other than her death, which mourn the loss of the language more than they mourn the loss of her as an individual. It is appropriate to mention her at the language page, of course, but she doesn't deserve a standalone article which includes only trivial details of her life other than the accident of her birth and longevity which made her the last person to remember a given language. Compare this with Ishi, who was the last speaker of Yahi. He spent the last years of his life living in San Francisco working with the greatest anthropologists of his time to document his language and culture. He was regularly mentioned in the newspapers of his day and his death was a national news item. A best-selling book was written about him and his life. He was more than someone who simply outlived his peers. --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rule reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It doesn't mention any rule about "remembering" or "speaking", just "significant coverage in reliable sources" for whatever reason the sources choose to cover the subject. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is "not certain" and "don't think" – enough said. Let's now listen to Last of the Bo Tribe Sings. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep independent coverage as noted by Richard Arthur Norton is enough here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per article's sources. Aust331 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely seems to meet the GNG. The current sources are good, but it would be even better if some academic sources could be found (which seems likely given the article mentions that she was interviewed by a linguistics professor). I might have a look later. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"She was interviewed by a linguistics professor". That's a baloney reason to list her. When I was doing my fieldwork in linguistics, I extensively interviewed two speakers of the language I studied. Do they deserve a Wikipedia article because they are mentioned in the reliable source (peer-reviewed scholarly work published by a reliable press) that I wrote? That is a lousy reason to be included in a Wikipedia article: "They were interviewed by a scholar". Think about it. How many tens of thousands of people around the world hold that same distinction? It's a ridiculous reason. --Taivo (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that in future you read sentences more than once before furiously typing out what ever snarky reply comes to mind. To save you the trouble of re-reading it, I'll paraphrase what I wrote above: (1) it would be good if academic sources could be found for this article, and (2) I think it is likely that academic sources are available, because the article's subject has apparently worked with an academic. It is common in AfD discussions for contributors to suggest ways to improve the article. Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to understand the point I was making. Finding any old academic source that mentions her name is not an appropriate reference. That's my point. I mentioned my informants in my scholarly work and even gave brief biographical information about them. That does not make them suitable topics for a Wikipedia article. Just because Boa Sr (there is no period after Sr) is mentioned in a linguistic work (and she probably was) and just because some biographical information might be included about her there still doesn't make her a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. All field linguists who write grammars of the languages they study have biographical information about the people they learned the language from. That doesn't make them suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. --Taivo (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are obituaries (and are all reprints of the same info). Nothing prior, so she is notable because she died? Of course not. She as a individual is overshadowed in these sources by the "loss" of a speaker/former speaker of a language. I find that the demise of the language is the primary topic of these sources. I agree with User:Taivo that she is not notable. MB
WP:GNG makes no distinction between pre-mortem and post-mortem sourcing. The !wikilaw only requires that they be "reliable" and "independent of the subject". If your rule was true we would have to get rid of all fictional characters, and most early historical figures. As to "all reprints of the same info" I noticed that about every Abraham Lincoln biography, they all seem to use the same material, the same birth date, same person he married, same manner of death. You would think that in at least one biography he would kill vampires. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage though is WP:ROUTINE coverage that you would expect when the last person of a language passes which is why they are all obituaries or something around that time. It's not coverage about her and doesn't show her notability. This is not like Ishi who, prior to his death, was written about extensively and was actually notable during his life and who, beyond just after the obituary was written, still had some evidence of notability. Here, all the notability is tied to the death and these are all obituaries. It's again no different than the person who happens to the oldest living person for like a day and gets a flood of obituaries and news pieces and then never again. There must be more than "a flood of people reported on her obituary" or else you could pretty much copy the obituary section of any newspaper and write on everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not derived from "wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, [or] other [related] items" as described in WP:ROUTINE. If you are going to invoke a !wikirule, quote it directly like I do, instead of waving it like a magic wand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries are absolutely routine announcements since they are virtually universal within literate societies with newspapers. The only reason her obituary was picked up was because of the language she spoke, not because of any notability of her own actions. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When your grandma dies, her obituary is routine in the local paper. The BBC and the Guardian do not print obituaries for your nanna. If you want to develop a !wikilaw that excludes obituaries from notability, by all means work on it. Right now they are de facto markers for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been developed. It's considered WP:ROUTINE coverage that someone who would be the last speaker of a language dying would be covered as the last speaker of a language. It's no different than the fact that it's ROUTINE that there would be obituaries about the oldest person from America who died but that doesn't mean that a separate article on that person is automatically warranted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wealth of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject of the article is what makes the person notable. That some people are unfamiliar with or ignorant of the nature of the claim of notability as "last rememberer" is hardly a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should Roscinda Nolasquez be kept as well just because she's the "last rememberer" as well? Being last speaker is not a notability standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ricky81682, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't an argument for deletion. If the Nolasquez article has the same level of sourcing available for Boa Sr., it would be a resounding yes. Reliable sources are the standard here, and the standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). This individual seems to be much better known than most subjects interviewed by linguists. Readers would expect to find an article about her, and there is no reason to frustrate them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Among linguists she is not "better known". Indeed, there are many living consultants who are far better known among linguists than this woman, but who get no press. And you don't seem to get the point. She's not the reason the Guardian and the BBC published her obituary. Her language was the reason they published her obituary. Indeed, the amount of time she spent with the linguist was minimal compared with most other linguistic consultants, the consultants whose knowledge and patience actually lead to grammars and dictionaries. That's the point we're trying to make here. She was not Wiki-worthy. Her language, yes, indeed (and there's an article for it where she is mentioned). But not her. Indeed, if you look at Aka-Bo language you will see that it replicates (appropriately) almost the entire information here, actually making this article a needless WP:CONTENTFORK. There is nothing noteworthy to say about this woman separate from the knowledge she had of a language that she had not used for decades. --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Aka-Bo language in fact repeated a number of details about Boa Sr's life that were quite irrelevant for a linguistics article, and which I removed, on the grounds that they did nothing whatever to help readers understand the language. So the article is not a needless fork. There is clearly material that would be appropriate to an article about Boa Sr that is not appropriate to an article on the Aka-Boa language. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that every factoid in existence must have a place here, even those based on a reliable source. There is no article for the second to last speaker or the third to last or the last male speaker or fluent speaker or whatever other random distinguishing criteria people make up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By my evaluation the subject meets GNG and I think there is no benefit in over-riding the presumption of notability for worthwhile articles such as this one. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable individual and of significant note in the study of this language; meets GNG with multiple RS from independent sources. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets GNG. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her place in history is significant as is the Bo language and a marker of the end of the language. I will insert more sources and clean up superfluous information. There's plenty of books she's included in plus articles from the BBC and the Telegraph. Miffedmess (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically significant.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boa_Sr.&oldid=1137634196"