Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Diana Dods


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Mary Diana Dods

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

If this subject is notable, the article doesn't show how. Owen (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Article has been significantly improved since nomination. Owen (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep - It has been demonstrated that this person is in fact notable and that my original reasoning was false . AllanVolt (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:JNN, what specifically makes the sources I have identified below not notable? TheMagikCow (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. How is citing a 305-page biography published by a university press not showing how the subject is notable? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Please see WP:ARTN. No sources is not grounds for deletion on notability. Incidentally, a 305 page university press book identifies, to me, clearly shows how this subject is very notable. Further to this another academic source  further backs up the claim to notability. These are very high quality sources, and definitely enough to meet the WP:BASIC criteria that are required. They are reliable, secondary and independent. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the several references that I have added to the article and the specific Romanticism and Sexuality article identified above, which are sufficient to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the article should be expanded rather than deleted. The article may not be "finished", but no article on Wikipedia have to be; the can be expanded indefinitely. If an article does not show the value of the subject, than it should be expanded and not deleted. --Aciram (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Her writings may not have been earthshaking, but her personal relationships were unusual for that period and her close friends appear to have included Mary Shelley and Jane Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcln1 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has been some recent work to improve the article since it was nominated for deletion. There are some interesting circumstances here. The published writings of this individual don't sound as if they are enough to pass standards of notability in their own right. And being friends with other interesting intellectuals isn't enough to establish notability. Of course, the more unusual details around this individual's life and the nature of their relationships only came to light within the last couple of decades, through the work of an academic who had studied Mary Shelley and then realised she had stumbled upon a mystery. A book was published by the academic and following this numerous people have drawn upon that research. On balance, Dods passes WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm glad this nomination has led to significant improvements to the article. Owen (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But there are better ways to solicit improvement than nominating for deletion, which should only be done of the basis of deletion policy. If every article that needed improvement was nominated for deletion then we would have literally millions of articles at WP:AFD, which would obviously overwhelm the process. At the time this was nominated, and before any improvements, notability was perfectly clear. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nonsense, at the time of nomination the article had existed for three years without having grown beyond three sentences in length. It lacked any links to any online sources and was without any inline citations. So, at the point at which it was nominated, notability was certainly very far from being "perfectly clear". While WP:BEFORE is important, don't pretend that the article appeared to be anything other than a stub that was begging significant questions. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not nonsense to point out that at the time of nomination this article cited a 305-page biography of the subject published by a University press, and that that makes notability perfectly clear. Such a source is many times better than any online source, as this is an encyclopedia, not an Internet mirror. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, your contribution at the start of this discussion consisted only of a rhetorical question which did nothing to explore what criteria might be used to determine in what way the subject of the article might be judged to be notable. It is not sufficient to presume that a person is notabile on the basis that a book exists that includes the name of that person within its title. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The criteria that might used to determine in what way the subject of the article might be judged to be notable are spelt out at WP:GNG, so there was no need to repeat them here. Please stop digging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I would encourage you to use AfD discussions to explore what evidence is available, and to consider what criteria a subject might meet, not simply to sniff at other editors that seek this information. Checking is an important part of the AfD process. While there may be several editors stepping forward to defend the subject of the article after it was listed, your statement about notability being "perfectly clear" at the time of nomination is unsubstantiated and I have explained why this is the case. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have substantiated that statement more than once above. Please feel free to have the last word here, because I have no further interest in discussing this with someone who refuses to recognise that substantiation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody non-involved snow close this? It is now clear to all that the subject is notable. Or would be prepared to withdraw this nomination? TheMagikCow (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for drawing attention to this page and so encouraging some of us to make something of it. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (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.