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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Harriet Belchic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Subject was a local campaign organizer and the sources, not of which are actually used as citations, are mostly obituaries or basic government records. GPL93 ( talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Obits are among the best sources for people who lived before the days of the internet. The article has been expanded over the years and could no doubt be further developed. Here we have a biography of historic interest.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Of the obits, only one is actually hers and they are all from the local newspaper. I already did a search online and it didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. GPL93 ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Sure, an obituary can be used as one source amid a mix of solid sourcing; it may sometimes, for example, be the only source we can actually locate for a person's actual birth or death dates or for a woman's maiden name. But the existence of an obituary is not an instant notability pass in and of itself, because more or less every single person who exists always automatically gets one. The obituary can be used for verification of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but is not in and of itself a GNG maker if it's the only, or the strongest, source that's actually on offer at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I've added some references from other newspapers, including political participation at the national level. Nick Number ( talk) 17:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't see any of her roles reaching notability. Johnbod ( talk) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete local newspaper obituaries do not establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, this person was notable and the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep This person passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article has adequate sources Gristleking ( talk) 13:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Even with the new sources that have been added, the obituary itself is still the only source that's substantively about Harriet Belchic at all — all of the new ones are just glancing namechecks of her existence, not substantive coverage about her doing anything that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion. GNG is not just "anybody who's had their name mentioned in newspapers two or more times for any reason whatsoever" — it tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what she's getting covered for, not just the number of footnotes present in the article. Nothing here, either in the substance or the referencing, is enough — a person does not clear GNG just because you can find her name in a list of everybody who was elected to the board of a non-notable organization, or a comprehensive list of every single person across the entire state who was a delegate to a political convention: a source helps to get her over GNG if she's substantively a subject of it, not if it's fundamentally about something or someone else and just happens to mention her name a single time in the process of not being about her. Bearcat ( talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is the record of an honourable, useful life, of civic virtue, of dedication to community and a willingness to put her shoulder to the wheels that make community and American democratic government work. We are fortunate to be blessed with dedicated citizens like Belchic. But none of the sources or any that I can find supports the idea that she was notable by our standards. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: While the first source ( local newspaper obituary) could count towards WP:GNG, none of the other sources in the article offer any significant coverage on the subject. I found a few other passing mentions elsewhere as well (e.g. Cross to Bear) but nothing sufficient to count towards GNG. Her actual accomplishments fall short of WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. — MarkH21 ( talk) 18:56, 10 April 2019 (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.