Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Iris Martin

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 a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Iris Martin

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

Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per page two of the source dismissed by the nom, there were two obits in national newspapers and a retirement biography of her in the major national magazine of her profession. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Dedicated to lifting nursing standards in the Gisborne herald, 5 Sep 2001; p.10 24cm. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the stub doesn't show notability, she was included in government-published encyclopedia, and that means she is notable by that virtue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is community consensus that people with a DNZB entry are inherently notable. Schwede 66 15:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Schwede66 for moving the article to a better title. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2016 (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.