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.
At first glance she does appear to meet
WP:ANYBIO as someone included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, but turns out that the publication makes a conscious effort to include a range of ordinary people as well. There is no claim of significance here or in her dictionary entry. This is a weak keep at best. – Thjarkur(talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The only justification for a keep is that she included in DoNZB. More evidence that that criteria is flawed.
DerbyCountyinNZ(
TalkContribs) 22:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I note that the NZ National Library has archived some of her papers (or ferns)
[1], and I think
this is her in the Cyclopedia of New Zealand (1903). Inclusion in two national dictionaries ought to satisfy
WP:ANYBIO. Also a reminder that, in that era, she may have been referred to as Mrs. Edwin Elsom or Mrs. E. Elsom in contemporary records.
pburka (
talk) 22:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Clearly not one of the representative bios (as explained in the DNZB article). There have been dozens of AfDs of DNZB entries and they have all been kept. Clearly, having an entry gives inherent notability. Schwede66 07:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as consensus has previously to keep articles on ‘ordinary’ people in DNZB.
Mccapra (
talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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.