Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Baden-Powell


 * 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. I find Bearcat's arguments to be the most persuasive given the current state of the article. No prejudice to recreation if there are reliable sources asserting a substantive claim of notability are included; if any re-creation fails that standard, it can be deleted per CSD G4. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Baden-Powell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of a person whose only substantive claim of encyclopedic notability is happening to have Baden-Powell for a surname (see also Articles for deletion/Francis Robert Baden-Powell), and citing only a genealogy for sourcing. I'd be willing to withdraw this if a substantive claim of notability, supported by reliable sources, could be added, but Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate the publication of genealogy research. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (chat)  @ 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (state)  @ 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, (quoting Mandy Rice-Davies I would say that, wouldn't I. Actually, her surname is irrelevant - it was actually Smith before she married in 1943, after most of the derring-do; she and her husband were POWELLs, and changed their name in 1956 (I believe), and I don't think there is any connection with B-P.  However, her name is mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles, e.g. Special Operations Executive and List of female SOE agents, in both of which very few do not have their own article.   RobinClay (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that her surname is irrelevant. It would not be surprising for a WW2 SOE person who published 3 books about it to satisfy WP:BIO, but how much coverage is there in independent reliable sources, about her specifically or about her books? That is what we need to see, not mentions in other Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if the article had been citing any actual reliable sources to demonstrate her notability as a writer, ....
 * How about these reviews ?  RobinClay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.amazon.com/ss/customer-reviews/0709167482/ref=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer?_encoding=UTF8&k=Pimpernel%20Gold&ref_=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer&showViewpoints=1 ?
 * http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0709077157/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
 * Amazon reviews are not reliable sources. Coverage in real media, and only coverage in real media, counts toward notability at all. We don't keep an article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sources as evidence that their books exist — you have to show media coverage which demonstrates that independent reliable sources paid attention to her writing career. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * .... then I'd have left it alone. But if the article as written is sourced only to a genealogy chart, then the family relationship itself is the only claim of notability we can assess on the basis of the sourcing at hand. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing about her writing beefs up a ton, but not as long as it relies exclusively on primary sources like this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had a look at the articles on a few other "female S.O.E. agents", and some of their entries are also relatively sparse.  By the very nature of their profession, much was (and still is) kept secret.  An article on her (I never saw it) was deleted some years ago, so "I'm not the first" to believe she merits one.  If that page were still to exist somewhere out there in the ether, perhaps a combination would satisfy you.  I expect to uncover more; the search continues.  "Author of [at least] three books" is quite something in itself.  RobinClay (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note this is a new article from a reasonably experienced editor. Someone else has tagged the article for "major restructuring". I suggest we hold off for a while, and hope for improvement in the next weeks.  There is a hint of notability showing. --Dmol (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think she is notable as a member of the Special Operations Executive. Biscuittin (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Where is this article going? Bearian (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not understand. What is being hidden? Biscuittin (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep could do with some more work but as an author of three books and a SOE operative she is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.