Need sleuth-hounds help for death-dates

[GrannyGrump]

Well, I am disgusted. I have seen quite a number of Wikipedia articles treating of persons I would consider to be quite un-noteworthy.
"Jimmie-Joe-Bob, minor politician, did little, and that poorly."
I wonder what their criteria might be.

I had run across several reference books (google books) that briefly discussed Maggie's contributions to children's literature, but I did not note down or bookmark the URLs for any of those. (I think search term at that point was simply Maggie Browne plus the Book Title.) If you think citing those might be worthy of the wiki-wizards, I'll go spelunking again.

[BobC]

When I posted that the rejection was based on my first draft where I didn't understand the need to establish "notability". I did some research into newspaper articles where her work was reviewed and added three references.

You can see my latest attempt at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Margaret_Hamer

However this has been rejected as having not sufficient coverage (apparently you can't refer to other Wikipedia articles to establish notability)

If you can come up with any reference books that discuss her contribution to children's literature I would happily work them in and give it another shot. I've found a few Google Books but they are pretty well all books authored by her or references to characters in other books named "Maggie Browne" such as the one in Elizabeth Gaskell's "the Moorland Cottage"

BobC

[doubleshuffle]

Wikipedia is notorious for finding women un-noteworthy. I dimly remember the female scientist who was refused an entry again and again for not being noteworthy - and then she won the Nobel Prize. Was a year or two ago, don't have the time to google the affair right now.

[doubleshuffle]

Now I looked her up anyway. It was physicist Donna Strickland last year. Now she does have a Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Strickland

Wikipedia itself has a pretty good article about its own gender bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

Donna Strickland had been rejected for precisely the same reason as Margaret Hamer:

In October 2018, when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics, numerous write-ups mentioned that she did not previously have a Wikipedia page. A draft had been submitted, but was rejected for not demonstrating "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject".

My favourite nugget from the article is this:

Another critique of Wikipedia's approach, from a 2014 Guardian editorial, is that it has difficulty making judgments about "what matters". To illustrate this point they noted that the page listing pornographic actresses was better organized than the page listing women writers.

Now I'm going to check if this is still the case...

EDIT: The porn actress list is still better organised, but in the spirit of equality they have now added male porn actors. I kid you not.

[BobC]

After a lot of help from an experienced Wikipedia editor Maggie Browne now has her own Wikipedia page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Browne .

When I compare the finished article with my original attempt there is a world of difference in the presentation.

BobC

[GrannyGrump]

@BobC --- I've been on hiatus for a long bit, and come back to find your impressive Wikipedia page. Very nicely done, sir!

All I ever found was a partial bibliography, and a few cites in some google book previews, so I bow abjectly to your awesome mad skillz!

I *FINALLY* found a scan of "Wanted-A King" on archive.org --- mis-filed under author "Margaret Tobin Brown" (the Unsinkable Molly Brown), so no wonder it was invisible. I am working on an epub of that book now.

Thank you, thank you for your hard work.