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. I'm calling this a delete with sadness in my heart, because it seems like the kind of topic we should be covering. However, the debate here is pretty clearly a consensus for deletion, especially since those arguing to keep have failed to provide any useful sources.

Part of the problem may be that this person lived before the days of ubiquitous internet coverage. This is a problem which is sadly being manifested in our inexorable slide towards becoming ModernSocietyAndPopCulturePedia. If somebody is able to find some usable sources, ping me and I'd be happy to restore this as a draft for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh[edit]

Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh (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)

Not notable person per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG Kharkiv07 (T) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1940', 1950's, and 1960's men dominated business. Women were not to be seen. If Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh had done today what she did in those decades, she would have been featured in numerous papers magazines and websites, etc. That was a very sexist time and we have witnessed a great change in society since then. Contemplating deleting inforamation on a woman who accomplished so much in her life with business, art and family, aside from the medical issues, because it was not notable to the sexist society in which she lived is nothing less that continuing that sexist attitude and ignoring the great strides women have made in society and in business in our lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbeltgal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One of the clearest deletes I've ever seen at AfD. This is quite a large promotional piece of original research with essentially no independent sources. No evidence whatsoever of notability. It might be good to look at Frank S. Welsh as well.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article needs to be kept and fixed not deleted. There are a wealth of sources available about on the internet now. The article passes WP:GNG and the subject lady has established notability. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? What's the hurry? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete -- there appears to be nothing on this subject in Google books: preview. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There may be a wealth of sources on the internet but I could not find even one about this person using searches with and without a full middle name and as related to the monogramming. The only references in the article are non-verifiable genealogy sites which are not necessarily reliable references due to lack of sources and are not viewable. Likely only shows family descent and relationships. This appears to be original research. Also, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The argument that she would have been notable except for the sexist time in which she lived (all the way to 1987, by the way) is grasping at straws. Sally Ride, Judith Resnik and others had flown in space, Martha Stewart was an accomplished author and Oprah Winfrey's show was on national TV by the time this lady died - hardly shows she lived her whole life in a sexist era, FWIW. More importantly, this argument does not cure the lack of sourcing and lack of demonstrated notability. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like a memorial. Just not enough material to satisfy WP:GNG. I note that there has been canvassing for this article.[1] There are more worthy targets. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Although she was obviously not one of the most noted people of her day, the research and additions to the article since it was tagged are sufficient to establish the notability of Welsh.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These additions are (1) a brief entry in "The Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Biography" for her father which mentions her name as one of his daughters; (2) a reference to a book by Roger Moss but no page citation because the quote apparently does not come from the book and is only meant to identify Ross as a notable person (based on the fact that the book does not come up as a result on Google Books when her name is searched with and without middle name but does come once, in a book by Frank Welsh, probably in the dedication - also, as would seem obvious, she is not one of the persons profiled in the book: see http://www.oakknoll.com/pages/books/120345/roger-w-moss/athenaeum-profiles-a-not-for-profit-education) and (3) a find-a-grave page which lists her year of birth, date of death and place of burial. The genealogy references, for what they are worth, were already in the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep But there is a need for more sources, I got four hits on newspapers.com but can't access them because I don't have an account. I'm not getting much at all on Google newspapers, Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh or Suzanne Welsh (adding in other terms such as "Pennsylvania" etc...). Looks like a lot of OR here, and we can't use that. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a nice essay I hope finds a home somewhere on the web. (Tumblr?) The issue is simply that since the vast majority of the material is unsourced, and no as-yet unmined sources have been identified, Wikipedia cannot be that home. It would be a misrepresentation to readers about the reliability of the piece. I did consider whether the entry could be reduced down to solely its verifiable claims, but the article would then consist of a list of her family members, one quote from one customer, and her gravesite. That is not even close to the "significant coverage" GNG requires. ETA: I'm seeing Montanabw's comment about the four hits on newspapers.com but since we don't even have headlines or know what the sources even are, let alone whether the coverage in them was at all substantive, I think it doesn't change my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as examining this article still found nothing close to the convincing information and simply the article itself overall is questionable enough to delete, as there's certainly not going to be any new information. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd like to see better sourcing. Are there any books or magazine articles about her that are not on the shallow end of the web? Bearian (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Response. Using search parameters with and without middle name for Suzanne Welsh: Nothing on Project Muse, nothing on Questia, nothing on Google Books except for mention in a book by Frank Welsh for which there is no preview. Considering the Wikipedia article on Frank Welsh which indicates that Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh was his mother, I think we would be correct to assume that Frank Welsh's (world history) book was dedicated to his mother. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment The second quote that was in the article, one editor keeps deleting it's unsourced, is found in the book below about the Hagy Family. It is the source notation with pages 411 to 413 I think but under the sources. I got the book just to prove and show a citation for it . I am on travel with only a mobile so I cannot reinsert the removed part with the quote. Once that is done I do intend to move that caution up to an inline citation in article body its self. Anyone could move it back, or we may until I return to my offices. Montanabw what would be the best way to handle that? I am not sure. Zpeopleheart (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Donner60 the book you are referring to in the second part of your comment above is already cited as a proof of the quote held there within. Do you think the book is not reliable or what? Or that the full text of book cannot found online. We can certainly not go by your assumption that there may be something only in the dedication. Please explain. Thanks Donner60 , Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Where are the sources to prove that is passes GNG? This is one of the clearest deletes ever. I do not see any independent coverage to pass GNG. WP:NRVE, which says Notability requires verifiable evidence should be kept in mind. Unless I see actual evidence of some sources, I think this should be deleted. The AfD is a good place to show this evidence and if this cannot be found, simply delete this article --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 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.