Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily McWilliam

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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. Of note is that several participants here have stated that this is an historically significant person in the history of New Zealand, and relative to these notions, note that WP:BIO1E states that "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily McWilliam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rest of a legal ruling. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First woman to be divorced in NZ. Academic article in the Otaki Historical Society. Also covered here (one of NZ's major news outlets). Furius (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Additional references have been added to the article: the Stuff newspaper article (noted above by Furius) written by a senior curator of human history at Canterbury Museum plus a further article from the Otaki Historical Journal which describes the fate of a significant bequest left to memorialise Emily McWilliam for her voluntary work in association with the local cottage hospital) Noracrentiss (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the additional references added since this was put up for AfD, we now have sufficient in-depth sources that show that WP:GNG has been met. Full disclosure – I was asked by the article's author how to respond to this AfD. My response is on her talk page. Schwede 66 05:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out several references that were junk. Perhaps you can update the article with proper reliable sources, that constitute secondary sources and that prove historical significance. The article from "Stuff" ref has been taken from the Otaki society, making it a duplicate source. You need stronger refs that prove historical significance. Not profile pages scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I was just looking at the Stuff article and am wondering why you say it has been taken from the Otaki society? The author, Julia Bradshaw, is from Canterbury Museum, and although one of the photos is reproduced from the Otaki Historical Society Journal there's no suggestion that the rest of the article is similarly copied (unless I am missing something). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks fine to me as is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have made some suggestions for small improvements to the article's author. I hope this article will not be deleted. The story of Emily McWilliam and the development of NZ legislation separate from Britain is a part of New Zealand's social history. Gertrude206 (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Worthy of notice" and having historic value. Looks fine to me as well. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG and WP:BIO requirements are met, as there is significant coverage of her life in multiple reliable sources as well as some coverage in other sources. As noted above, there doesn't appear to be any duplication in the sources between the Stuff.co.nz newspaper article and the Otaki society journal. The article is missing citations for some of the biographical details, but this isn't a dealbreaker. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2021 (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.