Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florry Burrell

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 which isn't any judgment on her or even a decision that comes easy to anybody who has participated here, but the lack of reliable sources that cover the person's life in depth has not been overcome. Or to rephrase some of the opposing arguments, Wikipedia is not for keeping a memory alive or answering questions that are answered nowhere else.Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florry Burrell

Featured person not notable, violates WP:BIO Anietor (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult decision, because the person is cited in The New York Times, by the city of New York, and having a street named after you seems like an award. But in the end, it's just not quite enough.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Community activist, nice lady, but a flap over a street sign is not a claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Dhartung. Nearly anyone can claim to have had an article written about them in a newspaper at some point, but that alone does not grant notability, even if it led to having a street sign named for them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In NYC, having a street named after you does not make a neighborhood figure notable -- and this article clearly shows why.DGG (talk)
Do not delete : The whole debate is about other people wishing to obliterate someone's memory because he or she does not measure up to an arbitrary standard of "fame." Voting to eliminate such a article is ironic at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.184.139 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Admittedly, I can't be objective about this, but if people have some doubts (as I see above they do) about deleting, the article should not be deleted. As was mentioned in one of the letters in the New York Times about Florry Burrell, if people see a street sign that mentions a name they don't know, they Google it. Currently if you Google "Florry Burrell" you get the Wikipedia article as the first hit, with exact references to her biography and to the debate about the street sign in the New York Times. If the Wikipedia article is deleted, you will get NONE of this, as it exists nowhere else. Is space on the web so precious that otherwise useful articles must be deleted? For what, precisely? The article is useful, up to date, and answers questions that many people might ask, as the sign is still there and likely to remain for many years. Barbaraburrell (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It is not as if this posting is hurting anyone, if anything it is keeping alive the memory of an intreped woman who supported the arts, the schools, and the families of Queens. She was an inspiration to anyone who met her and I think that her love for her family and the community live on in the people who talk about her. I am remiss to think that people have such a disrespect for the impact that even the smallest person makes, but people like you show me that there are people who cannot leave items on the infinite space that is the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.131.15 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the sentiments of the do-not-delete crowd here, but saying that the article "isn't hurting anyone" and should stay to "keep her memory alive" really doesn't address the issue here. There needs to be justification for keeping the article (i.e. notability). I don't think anyone has anything against the person, but wikipedia isn't a repository for info on every nice lady who was loved by family and neighbors. --Anietor (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Anietor does not deal with the chief argument listed above: that the Wikipedia article is useful because it answers questions that people will ask (so long as the sign is up), and that are answered nowhere else. Let's go beyond sentiment, but let's also go beyond irregularly-enforced (even in Wikiland) notions of "notability." If there is someone whose biography will be searched for, and probably quite frequently, Wikipedia should be the place where you can find it. There is no other place that does this. So let Wikipedia do what it does best, and not try to turn itself into a second-rate (because less dependable) version of any old encyclopedia.

Also, I notice among the delete crowd a lot of sneering references to "a nice lady" in "the neighborhood." How much is this about the fact that the "not notable" person is a woman, and not some professional man with a lot of letters after his name? Barbaraburrell (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaraburrell, I am trying to control myself here, but I am rather hurt that you are making an accusation of sexism here. Your accusation is baseless. Speaking for myself, though perhaps for some others, when looking at policy and choosing to offer support for delete, it can fly in the face of a baser instinct. My instinct is to help people. Favoring deletion may be my interpretation of the policy here, but it in no way necessarily makes me feel better about doing it. While I made no comment about his person being nice, or being a woman, I have made similar comments on AfD discussions before. It is perhaps a way to assuage my feelings for doing something that can be interpreted by some people as mean spirited or short sighted, when in fact I am doing my best to follow what I consider to be a sound policy. Further, I really think you owe some of the editors here an apology. I will apologize to the community here for taking up space and temporarily moving away from the content discussion, but it really chaffes me to see good people trying to do the right thing accused of something like this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The usefulness of the reference for anyone curious about the sign suggests that keeping the article is a good idea. Languagehat (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. The mere fact that this sparked both an argument on wikipedia and an article in the New York Times is like an ontological proof of why Mrs. Burrell deserves a wikipedia entry. Simply in complaining that she is not famous enough, you (and Stuart Miller in the New York Times) have elevated her fame to the point where she deserves an entry. Of course, this fame is secondary to the fact that she was well known enough within her community and touched enough lives to merit consideration for the tremendous honor of having a New York City street named after her. That is a semi-permanent marker which people researching the city in the future might want to know about. Don't we want wikipedia to be a place they turn to find those kind of answers?--King Greebo (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — King Greebo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not delete. What makes a person notable? Why do we know all we know about Paris Hilton or Brittany? And do any of us care? What about being a loving, thoughtful, thought-provoking person? Florrie touched the lives of many people both in and out of her neighborhood. She always said, "It's a great life, it you don't weaken". In my opinion, the world needs more people like Florrie, who gave her focus and considerable intellect to bringing her community together. Florrie once sang in a choir with Paul Robeson. She volunteered as in the local polls for every election for over 40 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghaspert (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — Ghaspert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete : Unlike Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and others like them who have really done nothing remarkable except get arrested and spend time in Rehab, Florry Burrell dedicated her life to community service and that is something to be remembered and commended. She provided a positive role model to children from the neighborhoods. Florry Burrell was a feisty, warm hearted woman that loved children and showed the world that being useful has no age limit. Keeping this article will help to show that volunteerism is one of the pillars that uphold the American neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatbush skp (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — Flatbush skp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I hope any admin who makes a final decision here will note that the last two editors (Ghaspert & talk) have made this AfD their first (and to this moment, sole) edit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is indeed noteworthy that almost all do-not-delete entries are from first timers, anon IPs or family members of the subject (a fair assumption since the last names in the IDs are the same). Certainly anyone can contribute, but it is something to take into consideration when evaluating what the true consensus is on the deletion. --Anietor (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you proposing a pecking-order in Wikipedia, that some class of "Wikiprofessionals" should be allowed to sway any decisions made on what is supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia"? Or that those who haven't posted previously should be ignored? Doesn't that conflict with Wikipedia's entire mission? Barbaraburrell (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a way, yes. However, it's not my proposition. It is consistent with the guidelines for deletion of articles. In fact, the "spa" tag has been inserted in this discussion to make it clear. The reason is clear...people who have no interest in wikipedia other than to promote a particular agenda or article. I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily, and to be frank the cries of sexism and unfair notability rules are unjustified and not in good faith. It's an attempt to hide the ball and distract people from the very simple issue here...is this person notable? The fact that the majority of Burrell advocates have to rely on arguments like "it's not hurting anyone" makes it rather clear to me that the subject doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability threshhold. Again, nobody is saying she doesn't sound like a nice person, but that's not how we judge things here.--Anietor (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This article should absolutely stay up. She did valuable things for the community of New York and was recognized so when they named a street after her. Also, part of her noteriety is that the New York Times felt that she was not famous enough for a street sign in New York City. By taking down this article we are in many ways backing up the NYT's claim that she was not famous enough and that would be wrong. Dfs3 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Being labeled "not famous enough" by the NY Times automatically makes her at least famous enough for wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.205.98 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes as much sense as saying that the NYT is an authoritative reliable source, and therefore the article should be deleted because the NYT says she's not noteworthy.--Anietor (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOT#NEWS seems to support deletion. The article subject was the subject of a single editorial; not an actual researched article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correction: The article subject was the subject of an editorial AND had a street in New York named after her. There aren't many streets named after people in New York (in relation to streets not named after people), and getting one named in your honor is quite noteworthy. New York City is a giant text written in architecture and urban planning, and most of its roots can be traced back on some level to individual stories. Naming a street after someone is a way to acknowledge that that person contributed to that part of the city. There are plenty of people who would be interested in what street names in New York signify, and blogs exist around such issues (like http://www.forgotten-ny.com/). If people note street names in New York, and there's a street named in New York about Florry Burrell, then Florry Burrell is "noteable". --King Greebo (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Mrs. Burrell may only have local significance, but that significance is profound. Countless articles describing less notable persons persist uncontested on Wikipedia. No purpose would be served by deleting this article except to insult her memory. User:Mutant Despot 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Mrs. Burrell may only have local significance, like Mutant Despot said, but the significance in that area is great. The lady deserves the Wikipedia article, it's certainly not hurting Wikipedia to have the information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.170 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The claim of using blogs as support for sources is likely in violation of WP:SPS, unless they are specifically hosted. A review of the three sources shows that they are not primary or second are in nature, and so I am pretty sure this article is also in violation of WP:V. Before I continue citing policy, is there anyone in favor of keeping this article that can cite a specific policy in favor of keeping it? I would like to be swayed, but so far I am seeing nothing to keep this article other than personal pleas that are not based on any Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lonely Beacon should know that I included the blog only as an example of the kind of interest people have in New York City streets and the stories behind their names. This interest is the very reason an entry like the one for Florry Burrell belongs on Wikipedia. This article will help Wikipedia readers learn more about a figure who has been written into the very landscape of New York City, thus improving Wikipedia's coverage of New York City, so even if she doesn't meet the standards of "notability" for Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter since it improves Wikipedia... by the policy WP:IAR. --King Greebo (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT piece isn't a story about the article subject, it's an op-ed piece arguing against naming streets after non-notable people. It's a trivial mention of the subject, which doesn't meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Darkspots (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete There are so many good reasons listed above to NOT DELETE the relatively brief, accurate, informative and readable article about Florry Burrell, especially because it raises just these questions of -who is making the rules? and -who's interest do the rules serve? Who decides the notability of any subject of biography is one of relativism that depends on one's own realm of knowledge. Sexism needs to be acknowledged, which could very well play a role in the basic premise of denying that the subject of this biographical article has achieved the level of fame supposedly required by wikipedia. Any of the dozen reasons mentioned in this discussion argue to keep this article available to posterity through wikipedia. That is wikipedia's alleged purpose. Sosin (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Sosin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.