Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact.  Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online.  She got obituaries in the Independent  and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot.  Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:
 * this book review
 * this obit in the Independent
 * this obituary in the Telegraph
 * minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography
 * this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper
 * this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives
 * One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (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.