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.
Delete. There's nothing out there about the late Ms. Settles other than the obituary, especially nothing to verify the claims that she's the first African-American chief in the USA or North Carolina other than the obituary, which was written by one of her family members. This is ultimately little more than a memorial page for a person who, while certainly an amazing person, does not pass the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. This could probably be speedied, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Not Delete. There is proof; there is an article in the local North Topsail Beach newspaper from 1984. This has been verified at the North Carolina State Library in microfilm. This article is valid! Tiparrish (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2012 (EST)
Delete I'm sorry, Tiparrish, I wish we could have an article about her, but Wikipedia has standards for inclusion which require that the person has received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Despite her distinguished career, it doesn't appear that she received that kind of coverage. The only thing I could find was the obituary in a small hyperlocal paper, obviously written by family members - coverage which is not independent and not enough. I could find nothing else at Google News or Google Books. It sounds like there was also an article in 1984, when she became head of the department, but again it is in a very small local paper; it doesn't sound as if her "first" status was noted statewide or even regionally. The article is well written and I would suggest you submit it to local historical societies. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Not Delete. There is proof; there is an article in the local North Topsail Beach newspapers from 1984 (The Jacksonville Daily New and the Wilmington Star News papers from 1984). This has been verified at the North Carolina State Library in microfilm. This article is valid! A Copy of the article from one of the above papers will be posted within the next 24 hours.Tiparrish (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2012 (EST)
I'll look forward to seeing that, Tiparrish, especially the items from the not-just-local papers. Meanwhile I am striking out your "no not delete" comment at the beginning of the above paragraph, because you already said it once and you only get to make one boldface "vote". You are welcome to keep posting and commenting here, as much and as often as you like - just don't start your comment with a "vote". --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MelanieN. Regarding your statement about not-just-local papers; Jacksonville or Wilmington papers are outside of Topsail Beach North Carolina, but they are still papers local to North Carolina. Either one of these publications should validate the article, agreed ?Tiparrish (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2012 (EST)
They would certainly help. I can't say for sure until I see them. (If you aren't able to actually post them you could just quote what they say - actual quote, not summary.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure I can get a digital copy of the article. But if not I will share the actual quote. Tiparrish (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2012 (EST)
Comment Not saying whether to keep or not at this moment, feel that it does have possibility to be kept, just needs better sourcing. However, for notability, I think it has potential. I corrected the NCpedia article that was referred to under the "Also see" section. Unfortunately I found that this article had pretty much been copied word-for-word from that article. Even though it is published by the State of North Carolina (or one of its departments), I don't think that is public domain. Marked as copyvio for now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the person who wrote the NCpedia article might be the same Tiparrish who wrote this article. Don't know what that does for the copyright or which came first. Anyway, still needs better sourcing. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's been edits from two users with different names, Tiparish and Randy.geer. I noticed that all of Randy.geer's comments have been signed with Tiparish's name, so I'm just voicing a concern. I've noticed on another AfD for an article by Tiparish Randy.geer has voiced an opinion, so I want to state this on both AfDs since I'm not sure which one he'll check first: please use caution when creating new accounts. There's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts as long as you are open and honest about the fact that you are using multiple accounts and as long as you don't use them to vote on different AfDs without being open about the fact that these are your accounts. (It's best to vote with ONE account since it'll keep it from looking like you're ballot stuffing.) If Randy.geer is not Tiparrish and is a friend of his, then this sort of relationship needs to be voiced as well since it is still a conflict of interest and could be seen as meat puppetry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as papers go, it'd be better if we could see the entire article. Brief mentions and/or quotes are not enough to show notability. You need more than just a paragraph or 1-2 sentences to show notability. I'm just concerned since I'm not sure that you're aware of what is needed for a source to be considered an in-depth and reliable source. Brief mentions and small paragraphs or quotes can really only be considered a trivial source than anything else.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See latest updated and posting of an article from the Jacksonville Daily News. Johnson is notable in the State of North Carolina and possibly the US as to date no records show any African American female fire chief existed before 1984. The updates to this article should be enough to retain its published status, though not enough to argue Johnson's status as the first African American female fire chief. The article clearly states "possibly" the first African American female fire chief. And as far as the earlier copyright issue. Tiparrish and Thomas Parrish, IV are one in the same. NCPedia.Org is a public government website and as such all posting are public record. Tiparrish (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2012 (EST)
Well, I see nothing in that Jacksonville article other than a dedicated employee, which does not equate to notability. WWGB (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the 3rd paragraph, it clearly states "Johnson, 56, also serves as the chief firefighter and paramedic" Tiparrish (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2012 (EST)
I can reference a number of Wikipedia articles that appear to be no big deal. However, for African Americans in the US and particularly in North Carolina, historical figures even from local sources are big deals. I'm not arguing your interpretation of what is a big deal, but to millions of African Americans particularly female this is significant from a historical perceptive and therefore should be noted on Wikipedia. Tiparrish (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (pEST)
Comment I haven't seen anything to change my !vote from "delete". Mr. Parrish, I can tell you feel passionately about this, but Wikipedia is not a place for memorials even though the person was beloved and worthy. I'm glad you were able to get your article published at NCPedia and I would encourage you to pursue other, similar venues to continue to memorialize her. She sounds like a strong and important woman but we just aren't seeing the significant coverage from independent reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. I know that can be a bummer, but Wikipedia has to have standards (otherwise it would lose its value as an international encyclopedia) and those are the standards that have been developed by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Melanie, I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree. A memorial this is not, passionate am I, yes. I do strongly believe this should be apart of the wiki library. Fire and rescue careers during the 1960s, 70s and 80s were not chosen professions for African American women. Administrative staff and leaders in this field during that time period were extremely rare. As I expained earlier, the uncommon nature of this profession for African American women 30 years ago should be more than enough to justify the Johnson article. The article should remain published as it is significant for African American women and should remain so until such time someone can show that an African American female fire/resue chief existed prior to Johnson in North Carolina. Now regarding your standards concern, I am in agreement. As a frequent visitor to wikipedia, I want to ensure it remains a valuable resource. The Johnson article in my opinion has more reason to be apart of the Wikipedia library than 100s of articles I've reviewed from the site over the years. Here are just 4 examples I found in as many minutes; Dale Diog, Thomas Ashby, Ian Learmonth, Marty Etler. These articles have been on the site for some time now. How are they more in line with the standards than the Johnson article. Tiparrish (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (EST)
I will not debate what is considered a large city; my point here is there are many articles that exist within the Wikipedia library that have been resources (some of which are useful) for years that appear far less significant, far less notable than Johnson's and yet exist without challenge. The "argument" here is one of consistency. Tiparrish (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (EST)
Comment:I think this is a wonderful article. It's not often you here about ordinary people doing great things but we glorify stars and their indiscretions in such ways. Just because it's small town news does it make it less worthy? I am from a small town and find comments like this belittling. Also her accomplishments were done prior to the time of the Internet so it makes since that you can't Google her name or find more information and seemingly the areas she lived in are small towns. Either way my vote is to not DELETE memorial or not I think more people should write about ordinary people doing great things for their community, maybe it will inspire people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kork73 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well put Kork73, well put. Tiparrish (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2012 (EST)
Delete - Unfortunatly, although she was a very fine person and someone who can help rekindle flagging hope for humanity, she isn't notable. The article referencing the "first female, African American fire chief" claim states that she was the first...in the community, and the article later says she was "arguably the first African American fire/rescue chief in North Carolina" (emphasis added). If she had been the first in the country and there was inarguable evidence of that, she would be notable with flying colors. As it is, though, it's regrettable that she does not cross the bar for inclusion, WP:WAX arguments about WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, and as Wikipedia is not a memorial, the article should be deleted. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good comments on both side of this argument. I did find the article was well written, a bit WP:memorial like, maybe. Johnson's accomplishments derive from small town USA with the claim of "arguably" being the 1st black female fire/rescue in North Carolina. If Johnson is the 1st black female to become a fire/rescue chief this would be worth of notability. The significant discovery here is being the 1st to do so. Wikipedia is in the business of capturing 1sts. I say keep the article until such time someone can show that a fire/rescue black female existed prior to Johnson. My 2 cents. - Oracle1968 —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 15 June 2012 (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.