Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Louisa Bustill (2nd nomination)

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 - The article has been improved since nomination and consensus here is to keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Louisa Bustill

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. She was related to notable people but the article doesn't make a case for her notability. All the references are related to her family members. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to Paul Robeson, but only on the basis William Drew Robeson I and Charles Hicks Bustill is also redirected too (it would be blatantly biased to only redirect the female relative). All are known only because of a famous son and the family info/basic info about Robeson's parents is already in the Paul Robeson article. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. no standalone notability. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears to be enough material for an article, and she appears in over a dozen references. She does not have to be the main subject of the articles used as references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources have more than enough material about the article's subject to satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough notability to have a separate article. Hx7 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norton and others above. --NSH001 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there are enough sources for GNG. She is treated in a non-trivial matter in many accounts relating to her son. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:46, 22 July 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.