Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Unwin


 * 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. The consensus is that biographical entries in major reference works confers notability. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mary Unwin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Claim to fame is the poet William Cowper stayed at her and her husband's house for many years. After her husband died, Cowper stayed on and eventually became engaged to Unwin, but never married. She helped Cooper write again after a mental illness. Article has relatively little about Unwin, but more about her husband and son. Nobility cannot be inherited. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited, but she's notable in her own right because of all the reliable sources that have noted her, such as: (1) The Dictionary of National Biography from whom her article is derived; (2) Cowper and Mary Unwin: A Centenary Memento, a book by Caroline Geary; (3) Oxford Journal of December 16th, 1922.— S Marshall T/C 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a tough one for me because she is mentioned in various sources, but only when it relates to Cowper. The Oxford Journal ref you mention contains two letters of Unwin to her son's friend.  The book, Cowper and Mary Unwin: A Centenary Memento, is indicative about most of the refs of Unwin.  The link you gave didn't include the text.  Here is the text of the book.  Unwin and Cowper wrote alot of letters that we still have and that is what the book is based upon.  Urwin and Cowper were engaged.  I'd give it a weak delete, which is why I nominated the article, but I'd understand why somebody would say weak keep.  At the vary least, she should be mentioned on Cowper's article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really can't see the "delete" argument. I can see the case for a redirect or a merge, although I'd also say that an entry in the dictionary of national biography ought to confer notability.— S Marshall T/C 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The nominator placed a speedy delete notice, citing A7, on Aug 26 using twinkle. This was declined shortly afterward, and rightly so, it was quite inappropriate.  The nom now offers "weak delete" and that is a 'tough one' because the person has numerous mentions in well known, highly regarded, properly published sources. This counts for nothing against the opinion of Seccombe, Cowper, Hayley and the other notables mentioned in the bio, it is just wasting people's time. Unwin was the subject of an extensive entry in the DNB, that ought to have been the end of it. cygnis insignis 01:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - bio in a major reference work for biographies is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I agree that Unwin doesn't seem to have done anything to merit notability. But S Marshall's and Whpg's point is persuasive: that she has biographical entries in major reference works is enough to pass the GNG, whether or not we might think she merited such entries.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but article needs improvement - and certainly the sourcing that confers notability is not present in the article.--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: a bio in a major reference work for biographies get you notability. Alas, the notability criteria for the  major reference work aren't what we might like. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (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.