Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Wilson


 * 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mona Wilson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She wrote one book and was "civil servant" - as in, she worked at an insurance commission. Only three references, one of which is just an index entry, another which is a dictionary of british women (so not much about specifically her), and the third of which is the book she wrote. Does not seem to meet notability requirements. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The reference described in the nomination as "just an index entry" is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Elaine Harrison, ‘Wilson, Mona (1872–1954)’, first published 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, 1878 words". Inclusion in the ODNB is the specific condition at WP:ANYBIO #3 ("The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication."). AllyD (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – People who have entries in other reference works are considered to be notable and meet WP:ANYBIO.  J 947(c) (m) 18:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets basic basic Wiki-Notability requirements. Dysklyver  20:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW keep. Already referenced to nontrivial coverage in two reliable references, one of them the ODNB, and according to this source with an obituary in the Times. Clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. ODNB closes it. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. DNB entry = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep ODNB, Times, etc. Article could use some work, but she's notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 3 October 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.