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 No Consensus, with no prejudice against some of these articles being immediately relisted individually or merged. It is unlikely that these topics can be given due care and attention in a mass deletion discussion and some of these individuals appear to be notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Pratt Russell[edit]

Being one of 20 people to sign onto a article of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete not notable Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Let's just delete the sorority too? I have worked very hard on these articles, and you are disrupting the encyclopedia in deleting these? Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too. I am out of here. This is a waste of my fucking time. Miranda 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you guys knock it off? I suggest taking that argument to the talk page -- or maybe just deleting it. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved unrelated discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accusing someone of WP:POINT violations is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. If this issue deserves wider attention, the talk page is the right way to go. --Solumeiras ^talk 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit unfair; that basically says that WP:POINT is worthless, since to invoke it would be a violation of two other central Wikipedia notions. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process comment -- as a general rule, founding sororities doesn't make people famous, however the obstacles these women faced as black female college students in 1913 make their story unusual. I suspect that some of these women went on to establish themselves notability-wise, while others, such as Minnie B. Smith who died young, didn't. I suggest considering these women individually. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with A. B.; these should be considered separately. Individuals who simply were involved in the founding of this organization would be best collected either at the organization's article, or at a "founders" article... those who have distinct separate notability deserver articles. I'm not overly comfortable with a mass nomination here.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge I don't think that founders individually are notable themselves for just starting an organization. I do think that if there has to be a page on the founders who are not individually notable, but are notable as a group for starting an organization, they can be merged to a page Founders of XYZ. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with A. B. that due to the varying degrees of notability (especially considering the race-specific issues), it's impossible to do a bulk AfD on these articles. I think this AfD should either be restored to its original purpose (Ms Russell only) or closed as malformed. In any event, I think each article should be AfD'd individually. Anchoress (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - I'm not certain what you mean by the "race-specific issue" and the varying degrees of notability. Could you please elaborate on this? My thoughts are it doesn't matter what race and individual belongs to, non-notable is non-notable. As for varying degrees of notability, there are individuals who were part of the founding group that I chose not to AfD because they had some clear notability beyond being a signer on an article of incorporation. These individuals have not done anything of note beyond that (unless I missed something in my original pass-through, which I admit there is a possibility). I suppose they could be AfD'd individually, but that seems rather excessive to do when none of them pass the standards of notability. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably <<1% of black women got college degrees in 1913. A young woman that pulled that off in spite of the many obstacles probably had an unusual degree of brains, fortitude and resourcefulness. I'm guessing that several of this group of women with these traits later went on to use those traits in ways that did make them "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Even the ones that didn't become notable were probably fascinating women. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What A. B. said. Anchoress (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Founders of Alpha Kappa Delta, no need for an individual article on all of them and this way all information is retained. RMHED (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a good way to go. Also, even though I raised the issue of separate AfDs, as a lazy person I do loathe the thought of all that work. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's Alpha Kappa Alpha. Someone needs glasses. Miranda 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and nix any page on the founders while we're at it. They deserve brief name-checks in the article on the sorority, nothing more. We appreciate hard work, but WP:EFFORT is not a reason to keep an article. I also see no compelling reason to separate these substantially similar biographies for individual consideration. If there are one or two with individual notability claims beyond this (and I don't see it in the first five) they may be singled out for retention in this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge into articles on sororities as appropriate, delete articles on these individuals. I do not see the "extensive coverage" from reliable secondary sources as reuired by WP:N. I note that Harriet Josephine Terry, Sarah Meriweather Nutter, Joanna Mary Berry Shields, Lavinia Norman, Anna Easter Brown, Marie Woolfolk Taylor, Lillie Burke, Beulah Burke and Margaret Flagg Holmes are all referenced solely from AKA publications, and many of the others may be as well (it's a bit harder to tell in some cases). One single book seems to provide the only source meeting WP:RS for any of these articles, I think the notability of all these people is confined to their founding of AKA, and thus I think ought to be merged into that article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strongest - Being a founding member of one of the nations most prominent sororities is very notable and that's even before you consider the fact that what these women did was found the first sorority for African American women in a time when being a female college student let alone a Black female college student was rare, even laughable. But let's move on to sources. There are two secondary sources provided out of four total sources. That is a sufficient number of secondary sources. Especially when the books are notable books on the subject. Extensive coverage has to be considered relative to the available coverage for the subject. At the very least an effort should be made to determine which of the founders are the most notable and maintain articles on them. CJ (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per A. B. and CJ -- This isn't just any random greek letter club, it's an old and unique African American institution from a time when there were few, it's not like including the work of these women is going to open the door to a billion pointless articles. This is a significant topic and frankly it is remarkable, article-worthy and historical. futurebird (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: I am sorry, did I miss the part where the sorority itself was up for AfD? No one gets a pass on WP:BIO by association. What elements of WP:BIO does anyone suggest these individuals fulfill, and through what reliable sources, exactly? Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. CJ's suggestion that an effort be made to determine if any of these founders are independently notable is a good one. This AfD has five days to run; go for it. Ravenswing 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going to college, helping found a sorority, getting married, having kids, having hobbies and teaching do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO . Each person should have substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. No such demonstrations of notability are provided. They sound like fine women, but that is just not enough to justify an article.Edison (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved personal attack to Talk page. Please keep this page free of disruptions, and take your issues to there. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepper A.B., CJ and Futurebird - This isn't just any sorority, but the FIRST African American women's sorority, whose members were one generation removed from slavery. That makes the founders and the organization noteworthy, especially as CJ noted, how few African American women went to college then. The US always recognizes its firsts! The top 1% of women is certainly notable. The context is essential, especially since you have no problems in keeping the founders and first fraternity for African American men. In other countries they consider teachers part of the intellectuals; we always denigrate them. If it makes most sense to have a founders page, with separate pages for those women who were more notable, fine, but the article about the sorority and a founders page should definitely be included. In 1980 the sorority established the Education Advancement Foundation, from which it provides scholarships and other assistance for learning. African American teachers, women or men, were critical to the education of African Americans in the South, who were in segregated schools, and to education in many northern schools, too. They were much more significant in their time than you seem to recognize. There may not be a lot of secondary sources yet, but someone will be studying the lives and work of these women, just as scholars have begun to recognize the worth of the first early 19th century girls' schools and teachers in the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist them separately. Some of t hem do have what would be regarded as notable careers. Parkwells is at least partially correct, that the accomplishments must be judged in the context of their time. some of the careers in high school teaching were in institutions that became notable colleges--and might perhaps have been in fact colleges in a less prejudiced era. But the articles as presented do not attempt to develop this adequately, but concentrate on the within-sorority accomplishments. We do a disservice in considering this a a mass nomination. Consider the implications of the careers of Ethel_Hedgeman_Lyle and Margaret_Flagg_Holmes and Beulah_Burke and Anna_Easter_Brown and Marjorie Hil and Sarah_Meriweather_Nutter . Those women have arguably been in fact notable educators by the standards of their times--all the more notable for the limitations of their society. DGG (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Relist them separately, but keep them We can work on the articles to provide more context for their lives. I started from the bottom, and both Lyle and Holmes had noteworthy lives, in which they were "firsts", taught and had active public lives, sometimes with leadership roles in major cities, in which their responsibilities were necessarily larger. --Parkwells (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (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.