Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ysabel Birkbeck


 * 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) — Yashtalk stalk 05:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ysabel Birkbeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first reference is to a book review of a compiled diary, the second is to a blog, the third is to another blog (as near as I can tell), and the fourth is to a collections listing (in which the subject's name is mentioned and some of her photographs are held). None of these supports a notability claim for the subject herself, which would require non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable secondary sources. Having a [seemingly notable] mother with the exact same name makes this more complicated. KDS4444 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This  debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and rewrite into a book article. I think she is not notable, but her diaries may be. Google Books shows a dozen or more cites, plus a review in . So we have two reviews, which is borderline "multiple". Perhaps someone could find one more decent source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I concur with Piotrus; coverage of her papers seems and papers, in my opinion, lend her some notability. Also, there seems to be reliably sourced information about this individual beyond what is in the diary (depending on what you think of Parker Publishing). I think that lulu.com is a vanity press and often not considered a reliable publisher. The published version of her diary is published by this house, and coverage of her papers seems largely from before they were published as a diary, so I do not think the diary is notable itself as a published book, and I do not know if Footsteps in the Dew would count as a reliable source. I don't think an article called, the diary of Ysabel Birkbeck or the papers of Ysabel Birkbeck would make much sense, and the article should probably be of her with the bulk of the material being about her war experience based largely on her papers rather than being of her papers with a a small amount of material about her life coming from other sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, her mother, who I think is even more suitable for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia, has a page with the same name but different capitalization, Ysabel birkbeck (and created at the same time by the same editor). So especially if the article is kept, this issues will need fixing. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The medical mission to Serbia was a notable (if obscure) aspect of WWI. The publication of her diary points to her notability.  I agree the article on the other lady needs fixing.  I would suggest renaming that to Ysabel Birkbeck (toymaker).  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems some one has already done that: the hatnote needs fixing and the oddly capitalised redirect deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for much the same reasons as Peterkingiron. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an article by a new editor. It is an excellent opportunity for everyone concerned to offer constructive support rather than threatening the article with deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep; looks like the references are being improved already, so the objection about that aspect may no longer apply. - Penny Richards (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I saw five or six good mentions in Google books before I stopped counting. meets WP:GNG.198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, and a gentle reminder to follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. A simple Google search finds plenty of sources demonstrating the subject's notability. Pburka (talk) 16:46, 14 March 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.