Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke


 * 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   delete. Unfortunately, she still does not appear to be notable after the improvements. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject of the article fails the notability standards. I had originally tagged the article for CSD. Since then, some links have been added to the article, but those also fail to establish the notability of the person. Shovon (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, POV Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfied with improvements Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. The auckland war memorial museum does user-uploaded content. The author should take their efforts there. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7. There may be references, but there are no assertions of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find enough reliable references to this article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete arguably a borderline A7. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, the rules are clear, but it's a shame. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have made significant improvements to the article from what it once was. Previously it was this, and now it looks like this. From the sources that I found and the different coverage, including what the subject was involved in, I feel that this article meets the notability standards. Silver  seren C 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite improvements, there still is very little to nothing that asserts notability. AniMate 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How does the article not pass the GNG? Silver  seren C 01:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Kudos to Seren for the hard work, a massively improved article. I'm a bit confused though. The sources mean this article passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC but Nurse Cooke didn't do anything actually notable. I'll sit on the fence for a bit. Bigger digger (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm with Bigger digger on this. The article is much better than it as. It has references and sources. What it doesn't have is a claim for notability, something of the form Cooke is notable because... Was she the youngest nurse in the war? The first to be sent overseas? Famous for her sense of humour? I'm happy to give seren more time on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on notability, as there appears to be a desire to see a reason for notability beyond just references, I put forth two possible notable facts. Cooke was a "Native Health Nurse" while in New Zealand, which, as described here, is a position that was held by relatively few people in the region. Indeed, for the entire Waikato Region, she was the only nurse available. A single nurse doing all of that would seem to be important to me. Furthermore, or separately you might say, she achieved the rank of "Sister" before she died, as referred to in many of the references. This rank, as described here, is equivalent to a Lieutenant in other military structures. I do not know how much notability this rank confers upon her, but I think it gives something, at least. Silver  seren C 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, but I still don't see a sufficient claim to notability (but then I am definitly at the stricter end of the scale in this regard). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even after my comment above yours? Silver  seren C 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Creating an online biography of someone doesn't make them notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Still delete reworking an article isn't always enough to save it, especially when the topic is simply not notable. Apparently the "rank of 'Sister'" is the second-lowest rank, and the title of the article says she was a staff nurse, which was the lowest rank of all in the same table.  In other words, she had a job.  And while it's great to be gainfully employed it's hardly a claim of encyclopedic notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She was a Sister, not a Staff Nurse. The article should be at Ella Cooke anyways. Please look at the first point I made as well. Silver  seren C 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. Staff nurse is the lowest rank, sister is the second lowest.  Neither is anywhere even close to being something one might get into an encyclopedia for. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose Lieutenant rank isn't good enough by itself, but I already knew that. But added with the fact about the Waikato region, I think it gives enough combined notability. Silver  seren C 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it's still a delete for me, although the improvements and and finding of sources reduces it to just weak delete. Unfortunately, despite the sources, I just can't seem to see just what is this person's claim to notability. Should it be kept, I would support a move to "Ella Kate Cooke". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please look at my "Comment on notability", everyone seems to be ignoring it, for some reason. I'll reiterate though. Cooke received the rank of Sister before she died, which is equivalent to the rank of Lieutenant in a military structure. She was also given the rank of "Native Health Nurse" while she was in New Zealand, a rank given to relatively few people. Furthermore, she was put in charge of the Waikato Region as the only nurse in the entire region, which is 25,000 square kilometers. Silver  seren C 14:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does being the second-worst ranked nurse and being the only nurse in the area a claim to encyclopedic notability? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No serious claim to notability, lieutenant is a fairly junior rank. PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment on notability, I guess, under WP:BIO, she would have to fit under Creative Professionals, as that's the only one that makes sense. Under that one, I would say she fits under #4, "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," in terms of the movie, In Memory, that features her as a large part. Silver  seren C 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also like to put forth, though it is OR right now until I prove it, but I believe she was the only New Zealand nurse to die during WWI. Still searching for info on that. Silver  seren C 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On what planet is nursing considered a creative profession?!? Did she make Band-Aid sculptures or something?  I get that you really, really, really want this kept for some reason, but your reasoning is getting progressively more silly because you're not getting your way. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the closest thing I could find on WP:BIO. She doesn't count as any of the others, so creative professional was the only one I could find. Truthfully, as i've said before, since she doesn't fit in it, as stated in all of the notability areas, her notability should default to the GNG or the Basic test. And, as i've already shown, she meets that by far, but all of you seem to want something more. Please direct me to the notability guideline that she needs to meet, because I can't find it. Silver  seren C 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nurses are creative professionals? Silver has done a good job of adding a lot of refs to the article, but I'm afraid that none of this actually establishes the notability of the subject. What started off as a school assignment is now subject of a big debate. :-0 Shovon (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As i've said above, I don't necessarily believe that creative professionals is the right criteria to apply, but it's the best one that fits. Please direct me to the correct criteria to use for this article. If there is none, then do you not agree that we much default to the GNG, which this article certainly meets?


 * Everyone above has been going on about needing a more explanative notability for the subject and I have tried to give examples of her notability, but they were rejected. Instead of being vague about needing "encyclopedic notability" without any basic in a policy, could someone please direct me to the criteria that Cooke needs to meet so I can try to go about to meet them? Silver  seren C 15:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG - "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.
 * Yes, this woman has been written about in some reliable sources, but she still appears to be a run of the mill nurse during WWI. You seem to want everyone who is saying she is not notable to help you prove she is notable. If notability were black and white, we wouldn't have AfDs. In this case, consensus appears to be saying she doesn't merit a stand alone article, nor is she guaranteed one. AniMate 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asking others to help prove that she is notable, I am asking others to tell me what criteria I need to meet to do so. If I don't know what I need to meet, I can't go about trying to meet it, now can I? I've given reasons for notability above, but they don't seem to be enough. This would all be much easier if there was some sort of notability guideline for nurses, but there doesn't seem to be one. Silver  seren C 20:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no notability guideline for nurses because as a general rule nurses aren't notable unless they do something extraordinary, and your efforts with this article haven't shown anything extraordinary. AniMate 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this article, but she is far from the only NZ nurse to have died during WWI. In one event alone (the torpedoing of the "Marquette" in 1915) nine NZ nurses were lost: . Daveosaurus (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (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.