Talk:Catherine Lynch

Notability

What makes Lynch notable, exactly? She's mentioned in a few newspaper articles, but she didn't do anything particularly noteworthy. Centibyte^(talk) 01:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Was wondering the same thing. It's a well researched article, but it omits Lynch's relevance. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 Usernameunique. It'd be interesting to see the reason for notability on the page itself! Hentheden (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Catherine Lynch, from the information provided, does not appear to meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (persons). Specifically: crime perpetrators may be notable if their victim is a “renowned national or international figure” or if the “motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is unusual.”

Although the article is meticulously footnoted, except for Belcham (2016) there do not appear to be any secondary sources. This raises the question of whether guidelines against original research may have been crossed.

I actually really enjoyed reading this article. It serves as a fascinating case study which powerfully raises the deeper issues of how to understand the roles of victim and victimizer in cases of prostitution, and the complex inter-relation of mental illness, crime and addiction. But I don’t think Wikipedia is the proper place for publication of this sort of research and writing. Paugus (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As others have noted, it's well written, but notable? Nope. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice article, but Lynch obviously does not meet Wikpiedia's notability guideines. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As a number of editors have noted, I too have a problem with notability here. While I understand that her life is representative of a wider stratum of British society in the early 20th century, she is but one example of this stratum with no notable, long-term impact (as far as I can see). In particular the arguments used to keep her on wikipedia could be applied to anybody. We are all examples of some stratum of society and thus, following your line of reasoning, all deserve to be on Wikipedia. I recognise that the article is well written, although the lack of diversity in the sources could be a problem (but then it is a symptom of the fact that she is not notable!). I encourage the author of the article to use his/her talent on more notable subjects, many of which have a much poorer coverage than Catherine Lynch, for whom I recommend deletion.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought I might be the only one to have a concern about notability. Similar concerns apply to the similar articles on Selina Rushbrook and Lily Argent.

There are various reports in a variety of local newspapers, but the only secondary source of any weight is Belcham. Is the assertion that any minor criminal mentioned in this book is notable?

Who is Elizabeth Belcham? Is she a historian? And who is the publisher, Heritage Add-Ventures? Is it self-published? 31.75.77.137 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly the dumpster fire that is DYK promotes an article about an absolutely unremarkable criminal into the front page. With a variety of sources available one might write millions upon millions of articles on people of her caliber. Shall we start with the guy who tried to break into my house three years ago?--Catlemur (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Catlemur, feel free to explain that at WP:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch. Maybe your trespasser meets GNG. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: could perhaps give some input to Catlemurs claim that DYK is a dumpster fire?.BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

...how to understand the roles of victim and victimizer in cases of prostitution.

Why not just start a wiki page on that topic, as such? Valetude (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --2600:1700:E210:C030:4956:C691:EB3E:367 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While she may not have been an important person, this article is a fascinating example of social history. People from the lower echelons of society were a large portion of the population, yet are too often overlooked.

Your argument for keeping the article could be applied to anybody. Aren't we all fascinating examples of social history to some level ? Aren't we all representative of some segment of society in our time ? Yes we are. As a consequence Catherine Lynch cannot have her article here (note, the article itself is of good quality).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --172.56.42.53 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC) It gives insight into the lives and fates of people in the lower economic classes of England during the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods. This was a time of "preparation for social change," an important historical period which saw the rise of Socialism and Communism as attempts to redress the inequities of widely-separated social and economic classes. Some of these inequities are demonstrated in this article. 172.56.42.53 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'these inequities' are already more than adequately covered in articles on the rise of Socialism and Communism, where interested readers are more likely to come across them. Valetude (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability/WikiTree

I do not see any indication of "Wikipedia"-level notability criteria being met for this individual, significantly, the article characterizes her as an obscure petty criminal.

WikiTree (no affiliation with Wikimedia) does not have notability criteria, and I have created an open profile for her at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Driscoll-1070

Please feel free to contribute the biographical information and sources over there once you have signed up for WikiTree and signed the honor code there. Note that WikiTree is not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia CC "sharealike" or GFDL licensing, therefore please do not copy and paste article text you did not author there, and please cite sources. NTK (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Article for deletion nomination

Everybody is welcomed to give his opinion on the matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iry-Hor (talk • contribs)

• Note: I have temporarily added a no bots template and hidden the AfD notice; I believe this is the same as a previous action taken when an article was on the main page. I have done this as otherwise the bot will keep trying to add the notice. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Given that the above ping list has failed to go through, because of a missing sig, I'm going to conduct a mass ping of editors involved here. Centibyte, Usernameunique, Hentheden, Paugus, Btphelps, HappyWaldo, DOR (HK), you're all welcome to refer to the above AfD to consider the comments left there and make your own. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: What ping list? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129 this one, though I messaged the IPs on their talk page and notified a few others that Iry-Hor missed in the top thread. I don't think I've missed anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I missed a third IP. Letting them know now. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well she is notable enough to be top of today's "Did you know" list on the front page - the only reason I came here. It's an interesting article and does no harm being on Wikipedia. At least it is a change from all the moronic Star Trek pages about fictional characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please leave a comment at the AfD. The discussion on whether to keep or delete is being held there. Just as it relates to process, DYK's are selected through nominations by editors such as myself, and reviewers by other editors, also such as myself. The top line is reserved for any hook accompanied with an image. Notability isn't a consideration at DYK. WP:DYK is here if you'd like to know more about the process. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While there isn't a reason for this page to exist given the usual requirements of notability, equally there isn't really a reason for this page to not exist. And as mentioned by others, it's still useful as a near-random example of a member of a community peculiar to a time and place that we'll never see again. Of course this argument could be extended to anyone and anything, but then that is my intention. 1lyke1africa (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't evaluated the sources myself but not displaying the AfD seems like a policy violation even if it's in the name of DYK... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it was an interesting move to raise attention for an article by suggesting it for deletion the very day it was on the Main page, - wonder if I should ask for the service for mine ;) - We had a TFA where someone made a move request that very day, - the compromise (after edit-warring with the bot on Good Friday) was not to show that ugly tag the very day. The next day, the request had been made superflous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Chrissymad: No, it's per WP:PCLOSE: If the nominated page is currently linked from the Main Page, remove any tag from the page itself, although it was of course too late to actually close the nom by then. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and speedy closed it. The discussion was headed for no consensus or keep anyway, and keeping it open while on the main page would only have created more disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Would anyone mind if I open a new discussion after the article gets off of the main page? We need to reach a conclusion without the additional Main Page problem. Centibyte^(talk) 16:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As an excercise in divisiveness it would be impeccable. Suggest letting the dust settle. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      • No, the AfD should not be done again. It was heading for Keep or at worst No consensus. But a discussion here is needed indeed. Not about deletion but on how to improve the article. But said discussion should not be initiated right away, but when the dust settles indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
        • There's no way to improve an article about a non-notable subject. Nothing can be done to this article to make the subject notable. The discussion should be re-opened once the article is off the main page so it can reach a proper resolution.2601:644:1:B7CB:3CCA:C562:3E18:D031 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The subject of an article does not gain or lose notability depending on whether or not it is on the front page, and therefore it seems pointless, not to mention a waste of energy, to propose deletion a second time. It was an interesting discussion, though; I can't say that I really disagreed with anyone in it, only with how to weigh the different perspectives. Personally I would have leaned towards keep, for despite having the concerns about notability that I expressed above, I found the article an enriching read. At the same time I felt like that by the time I got to the end of the article I was still left hanging a bit; Iridescent, I would suggest considering this as a candidate for GA, but I would also suggest first trying to fit Lynch into the broader context of 19th-century Wales. Surely Belcham 2016 and other sources discuss this in some depth? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was not resolved, it was only deferred for procedural reasons due to the article currently being on the main page. The underlying issue -- that the subject of the article attracted virtually no notice either in her time or the present one, and is thus not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines -- is still present. 2601:644:1:B7CB:3CCA:C562:3E18:D031 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect results would be different vs. AfD regulars as opposed to main page link followers.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD is not an option again in my opinion, it would surely lead to another No consensus or Keep result all over again. A discussion about what has to be done to improve the article might be initiated. So those who has issues with this article can raise their concerns.BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ Still, another deletion discussion would allow us to reach some kind of verdict, whether the verdict be a No Consensus or Keep result. The old discussion was closed for procedural reasons that didn’t really reflect the community’s view of the article’s notability. A new discussion would allow us to decide once and for all to keep the article, delete it, merge it into a new article, or take some other action. We would be closer to discovering that the article was or was not notable. Even reaching No Consensus would give us a better idea of the way that the community feels. I think that a new AfD would allow us to reach some kind of conclusion. Centibyte^(talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Centibyte - Starting a new AfD now would be like asking for a battleground. I would not even consider it until the dust has settled. That the AfD was closed for procedural reasonings can only be described as secondary since No consensus always neans Keep and Keep was the main direction in the rationales.BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

This article should have an infobox on it so the basic information can be listed and readily indexed by search engines. I have added it twice to the article but it gets reverted. If anyone has a reasons for not having an infobox on this article, please explain this here. Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a two reasons.^Sic Because a) everything your infobox says is contained in the first forty words of the article, thus making it an exercise in futility; and b) if the article creator had thought it was necessary, they would have done it themselves? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It still consolidates the information in the first paragraph into the infobox, I understand that it is a matter of preference, but some readers do prefer this. Also, can I point out that just because the article creator did not add it, the creator does not own the article. That is why I am here trying to gain consensus, we have still yet to hear from them anyway. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see "Catherine Lynch" and "Catherine Driscoll" are bolded in the first sentence and are more prominent there than in the infobox; dates of birth and death are in the first sentence and are the second thing mentioned within the article and are also easier to identify than the IB if you're a typical left-right reader of the English language; "Swansea, Wales" is mentioned at the end of the first sentence; "Domestic servant" shows up in sentence two of the article. If you have an attention so short you can't read the first two sentences of an article, an IB isn't going to help you... Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that information is redundant. I will try to create a new infobox criminal with more relevant information. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No, this article should not have an IB; as stated by others above, all the relevant information in this article is contained in the well-written first few lines. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: I will be creating a new infobox with more information in it. Will post a sandbox of it soon. Yes, the article is well written, the point of an infobox is to compliment the text of the article with information that can be quickly looked over. Some readers do prefer seeing an infobox, so they can look over basic bio info before they read an article, or because they are just looking for the basic bio info they can glean quickly. Can I just ask that we do not have a ballot here, at least for now can we just have a discussion. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

​Creating a new IB to use here so it can simply be padded out with irrelevant detail does not, to me, seem appropriate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It will not be irreverent it will be bio information and relevant info about her crimes and punishment. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I stand with Cocoaguy on this one. I much prefer glancing at the condensed information an Infobox gives me rather than looking it up textually in the text. Tinss (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are generally unnecessary and only make an article look ugly. For longer articles they might be useful for the hard of thinking who mostly only watch American sitcoms, but this is a well-written and quite short piece and I don't think it needs an IB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.15.42 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@109.150.15.42: Make an article ugly? I find that to be quite subjective, in fact I believe that it organizes an article well, especially for articles about transit and organizations. Yes, I can see how for some biographical articles, it can be redundant. Also, please try to be more civil, 'hard of thinking' is not the best way to describe your fellow Wikipedians. Cocoaguy ここがいい 20:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Lynch’s Accomplices

I have started sections over at Talk:Lily Argent and Talk:Selina Rushbrook to discuss their articles, which may not be notable either. Centibyte^(talk) 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There may be more notability as a group, maybe the three people should be combined into one article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 21:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The votes in the speedy keep afd here are the best indication of what would happen. Lots of chat and a 3:1 ratio of keep to delete. It would be interesting to watch so nominate away if you think there are sufficient grounds, but I'll be voting keep, I can see the problem but the quality and human interest of the articles trumps that concern. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I remember Template:Did you know nominations/Selina Rushbrook, sadly. The women were people, not a group. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how these 3, discussed together in a self published book (in relation to a single joint incident), would be notable as a group. Victorian era prostitution in Swansea might be (with better sourcing). The AfD was not one sided, and a well reasoned nom of all 3 in a bundle vs. AfD regulars might well close as delete.Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz The Victorian era article idea may be a great one IMO. We would, of course, need to ensure that prostitution was a serious, notable problem in the city. Centibyte^(talk) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

None of them is notable and this is not changed by the fact that they all refer to each other: a textbook example of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Main Page

The article appears to be off the main page now. Centibyte^(talk) 16:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the article, as well as Lily Argent and Selina Rushbrook, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catherine_Lynch_(2nd_nomination). Centibyte^(talk) 17:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You should really inform everyone involved in yesterdays AfD about this new one.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. @Iry-Hor:, @Serial Number 54129:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Sagaciousphil:, @Thincat:, @Catlemur:, @Robofish:, @HappyWaldo:, @Twospoonfuls:, @Andrew Davidson:, @Aldiboront:, @Macktheknifeau:, @Rainfall10110:, @Eric Corbett:, @Pawnkingthree:, @William Avery:, @Chess:, @Drmies:, @Yngvadottir:, @TonyBallioni:, @Eustachiusz:, @Cocoaguy:, @DOR (HK):, @Paugus:, and @Btphelps: feel free to participate in the new AfD. Centibyte^(talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Now I need to do something about the IP-users. Centibyte^(talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving messages on IP talk pages. @1lyke1africa:, @Chrissymad:, sorry for leaving you out. Centibyte^(talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I should have pinged most of the participants. Centibyte^(talk) 18:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I wish you had spent your valuable time in a more useful way. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel unfree, forced to comment again. I reviewed two of the articles for DYK (as around 1000 other articles) and believe that they enrich what Wikipedia has to offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You previously asked "Would anyone mind if I open a new discussion". The overwhelming response was "yes we would mind". But you went ahead anyway. This is not a pleasant approach by yourself. It can only put off many who wish to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.185 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoever you are (Redacted)you don't get to diktate anyone else's view. Lots of editors clearly think that these articles are unnotable and that a discussion is worth having. Eustachiusz (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I seem to be wrong thinking that an article's talk page is meant to be for improving the article?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not for bitching at people with differing opinions.Eustachiusz (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to tell me. Sorry, English is not my first language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. I was reacting to the more negative comments above criticising User:Centibyte for reopening the AfD, which I think are unjustified, as so many editors are clearly unconvinced by these three articles and want to discuss further the issues they raise, and was specifically moved to do so by the comment immediately above mine from an IP address, which I thought was an attempt to close down any discussion. Eustachiusz (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"It's certainly not for bitching at people with differing opinions". Advice I suggest you may wish to consider following yourself in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.185 (talk)