Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susannah Noon


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst ✈  01:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Susannah Noon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person does not meet the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. Looks like COI, article creator admits they have researched this individual, Wiki is not the place to promote such research. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Its certainly COI and would need a substantial re-write if it survives the !vote. The biography of the subject has received substantial coverage in the national media of at least one country, which should probably make her notable. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 09:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, no relevance. Dan Holsinger (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that she is the first Australian female convict to come to New Zealand to live and that in itsself makes her notable. Also given the date of her arrival in New Zealand she would also be one of the earliest female European settlers to the colony NealeFamily (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that - Charlotte Badger was in NZ a few decades earlier. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 05:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I hadn't seen her article, but still think it is a keep as part of the country's early European history. NealeFamily (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - One of the earliest female European settlers to the colony in question. Notable. Also per WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pre 1840 European settlers in New Zealand should be considered notable if mentioned in contemporaneous sources or reports of notable events of the time. Also, being the mother of Ann Boyce contributes to her notability. Additionally, the fact that the author who has recently published a new secondary source the chooses to contribute the result of their research should not result in an article being proposed for deletion because of CoI or lack of independent source material. If another editor cited the source instead would they receive the same treatment? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced article about early settler. Note that the recent book about her has gotten news coverage that supports notability and can be added to article .  Here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the article's author removed the book to avoid the COI as they wrote the book. The article is looking much better now. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 20:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very likely. I think all publishers ought to send new authors a copy of, How to Write a Wikipedia Article About Your New Book (And One About Yourself) That will Survive AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (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.