Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Turnbull


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  19:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Turnbull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of notability The Banner  talk 12:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if a person makes it into their dictionary of national biography don’t we presume that they are notable? Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The indication of notability is clear - with an entry in a dictionary of national biography, she meets WP:ANYBIO. It would be goid to find more sources and info to add to the article, but there's no reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be true, it is a complete mystery why she was added to the dictionary in the first place. Both dictionary and article fail to make clear her notability. The Banner  talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3. There may be offline sources (i.e. newspapers) due to her death in the 1980s. I've expanded the stub. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep if the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry regarding her is true, she was somewhat of a local celebrity at the time of her death. This I see as being an adequate case for the subject meeting WP:GNG at the very least, as the dictionary entry indicates WP:SIGCOV is met.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete . While the NZDNB is usually a reliable indicator of notability, it does contain a few "representative entries" of people who were not notable, and this may be one of those. Being a local celebrity due to being a centenarian does not seem like sufficient justification for an article on Wikipedia.- gadfium 01:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per Schwede66 and Coolabahapple below.- gadfium 05:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Gadfium is correct; this is one of the handful of representative entries, as further explained on that page.  Schwede 66  04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography appears to be a sensible thing to do, if/when further sources are uncovered to show that she is notable (at the moment article does not show this) then can be broken out to a standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Several of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, policy-wise. "Obviously passes GNG" or "notability is clear" (WP:ITSNOTABLE) are arguments that closing admins routinely ignore.
 * Keep Passes notability - needs reliable sources, since sources are uncovered to show that she is notable. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I really don't see where the notability is. It certainly isn't in being a centenarian. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess I skew inclusionist. Sourced, and basically notable. The Frizzer interview/bio is quoted by others too here and here. Hydromania (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The entry in the DNZB obviously passes WP:ANYBIO. The policies WP:ATD; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE also indicate that deletion would not be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So it is the source itself that makes her notable, not the content? The Banner  talk 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue here is the proposal that the article should be "deleted" – restricted so that only admins can read it. The fact that the subject is held in sufficiently high regard that she appears in her country's primary record of biography tells us that the proposal is ridiculous.  It violates several policies and so should be dismissed. Andrew D. (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So those of us who know something about this particular dictionary and have pointed to the "representative entries" don't know what they are talking about. Is that what you are saying?  Schwede 66  00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The representative entries argument is not a valid reason to delete. Notability does not represent a level of fame or achivement; it merely indicates that the topic or person has been noticed –– that there are respectable sources covering them.  The subject here has been noticed in this way and so, as a matter of definition, they are notable, as Wikipedia defines the concept.  Insofar as the DNZB included such people to provide good diversity then that goal aligns well with Wikipedia's and with modern ideas of social history covering common folk as well as great men.   Andrew D. (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Effectively that would make every soldier mentioned in dispatches notable, as the soldier has been noticed. It would also mean that every restaurant in a Michelin Guide is notable, as it is noticed. etc. etc. Evert kid mentioned in newspapers for winning medals at youth games would be notable, as he or she is noticed. To my opinion, that would severely damage the encyclopedia due to flooding with non-notable items. The Banner  talk 08:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Having lots of articles is not a problem; that's policy . Imposing arbitrary limits based on personal opinions would be a problem because it would be contrary to policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR.  If the editors of the DNZB or Michelin Guide consider a topic worthy of coverage then I am content to trust their judgement.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I was one who said "notability is clear" - because she has an entry in a dictionary of national biography, and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra's Keep !vote followed their Comment "if a person makes it into their dictionary of national biography don’t we presume that they are notable?", so it's clear they were also citing WP:ANYBIO. My Keep !vote stands. Firstly, I don't think we should second-guess dictionaries of national biography as to the reason why a person was included. Secondly, it is not true that no secondary sources exist: the entry for Elizabeth Turnbull lists 3, 'First party'. Taieri Herald. 7 May 1985: 1; Ramsay, C. 'A living history book'. Taieri Herald. 2 April 1985: 30--31; Stewart, P. J. Patterns on the plain. Dunedin, 1975. The first two are accessible online at PapersPast, the 3rd is not. If someone could access a hard copy, we could add that source to the article. Also, it seems that the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography has made an effort to be "more representative of population covered, boosting the numbers of women, Māori, and other minority groups". They have thus provided Wikipedia with a reliable source of coverage about topics and subjects which would otherwise not received balanced coverage within Wikipedia (WP:SBEXT). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment my ‘keep’ !vote also stands, following the reasoning of RebeccaGreen and Andrew D. Mccapra (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (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.