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. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippina Espenshied

[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Part of a user's attempt to create a family tree of non-notables here, and I do not believe a merge should be done for this reason- deletion is the appropriate course of action. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Also, reading this "Mayor Henry von Overstolz was a member of the oldest living German family in the world" made a bit confused. I guess, Wittelsbachs, Hohenzollern's and Wettins should envy :). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I tagged this and prodded it originally, and began the conversation at COI noticeboard regarding the article's creator. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the article is cruft (and a lot of it copy/pasted too) but there are two things that bear a bit more examination, I think. She was, indeed, the model for the sculpture "Evening" (this is sourced); and she was listed in two different editions of a book entitled (at least in 1893), "A Woman of the Century: Fourteen Hundred-seventy Biographical Sketches Accompanied by Portraits of Leading American Women In All Walks of Life". Link here. She's also in the 1897 edition, here. Maybe these are buy-your-way-in publications, or vanity things like Who's Who - but maybe not. I think it bears further examination. To me it is at least plausible that this person is, was, sufficiently notable that a short article would not be inappropriate. I want to look a bit more. (Also I appreciate that this seems to flow from a single editor's genealogy project. In my view, the motive for their creation notwithstanding, these articles should be considered each on their own. Hence my "week keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Capet Clopton and "deletes" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucile Alice von Overstoltz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Espenschied.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, each article must be considered on its own merits. As for the two points you've raised, JohnInDC: I'm thinking that the 'Biographical Sketches' were, essentially, vanity publications, or perhaps a sort of society listing. I'd be happy to learn otherwise. As for the model thing, it's a thin claim. Not even Helga Testorf is granted her own bio here, but is folded into an article on Andrew Wyeth's paintings of her, and she was the most famous artist's model of the last forty years. Certainly in this case, the best Ms. Espenshied would merit is passing mention in Frederick Ruckstull's article, but even there it would be WP:UNDUE, unless her notability could be established independent of her work as a model. Actually, I think her best bet would be a mention in an article on the sculpture, as yet unwritten. 2601:188:0:ABE6:EDF0:DB5B:A9AE:26CF (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just had a fascinating afternoon looking at many bios in the 1892 Women of the Century. It's not purely a vanity publication, but its coverage is very varied. We could probably write articles for a great many of the people there, perhaps as many as one-quarter. The apparent goal was to include as many people as possible. As the preface says, "this book is not alone of book of famous names, but one which aims to show what women have done in the humbler as in the higher walks of life." And indeed, interpreting "famous" in a very broad sense to mean what we would call "notability", many of the people would not be considered notable by any reasonable encyclopedic standard. Even adopting the extraordinarily broader and imprecise standard, of women who would have been notable if they had had fairer opportunities, that might add another quarter, but still not all of them. (For example, it's a matter of pure guesswork whether the women who were active in local temperance societies would in the 21st century have been notable politicians) It seems more that she was a society figure who was a dilettante. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just went through Google, Google Books and Proquest looking for her under various spellings of her name. Although there are some mentions of her, almost everything refers to her only in terms of her being the wife of von Overstolz or the daughter of an old established wagon-maker. I would therefore agree with mentioning her as the model on the sculpture article, with maybe a line or two about who she was, and leave it at that. I also note the current article about her is 80 to 90 percent about her relations with very little about her personally. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:28, 5 March 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.