Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Louise Nicholson

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 merge to Charles Archibald Nicholson. The content can always be broken out into an article again if new reliable sources are found separately establishing notability. BD2412 T 04:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Louise Nicholson[edit]

[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)

I don't see any elements of notability except possibly the book. But the book was only published from manuscript in 2006 at Project Gutenberg, and is not listed in WorldCat or British Library, though it is in the Australian National Library Catalog. I see no mention anywhere of her drawings.

Some of the material in this article is copied from the notes in the project Gutenberg posting, which is CC-noncommercial and therefore not a conforming license for WP, DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I am missing something, her only artistic output was Diary of a trip to Australia, 1897. No shows, no collections, nothing else. The diary was also not published in her lifetime, but rather donated as a historical object. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this perhaps be listed in an Australia-related deletion discussion list? There are some passionate Australian Wikipedians who may uncover more info about the subject. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article. Perhaps it does not do justice to Nicholson. She wrote a very readable and interesting diary about her return trip to Australia and also did many watercolour paintings along the way. I imagine that she never intended her diary to be published. It was a personal record. She was married to an eminent architect, and related to important people which I believe is a matter of interest to people. Goodness me, women need more representation at Wikipedia. don't they? Do what you will with the article but it escapes me why it needs to be deleted. Collywolly (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable women need more representation on Wikipedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her more well-known family members don't help her case. Not her husband, not her brother, not her nephew. See WP:BIOFAMILY DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am typically loathe to suggest this, but this time I think perhaps an adapt and merge to her husband's article is in order. I've not found enough coverage to suggest a keep or the creation of an article on the diary. She is the author of a book of interest to some, however recently published, and I could see people seeking out more about her; the bulk of this information could be preserved. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the ebook at Gutenberg states, Nicholson "made many watercolour sketches of the scenery along the way, including seascapes, landscapes and buildings." She did not just write a diary. Further, why would we want to merge it into her husband's story. Let us let her have her own light! Collywolly (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collywolly, what is your policy-based argument? We don't keep articles on people because they did run of the mill things. There is no coverage of any notable activity here other than writing a single book. The sketches do not appear in any museum collection and were not the subject of any other exhibition or review. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, Collywolly. Yes, women are underrepresented. No, giving one an article because she wrote a diary that was self-published and received no critical attention decades after her death is not the way to address it. As to merging, a large part of the article is about her husband, which says he contributed to the illustrations, so it is relevant to his article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge as per the above. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:15, 18 April 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.