Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Jenkin

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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Jenkin[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)

Non-notable. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Nb, the one text (Conversations with Dorothy Jenkin) that would appear to provide significant coverage is self-published and written for/with/by Jenkin’s daughter as a memorial piece and therefore not independent. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources look good for establishing notability: [1][2]. I can't access either as my local library is shut due to covid, but I'll see what I can do. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced plus the inclusion of work in a major museum. User:Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements of significant coverage when including references mentioned above. Another major article in a reliable source : [3] -- haminoon (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a person notable in the histories of Invercargill and Stewart Island, evidenced by the museum holdings and SIRCET newsletter; and in the botanical illustration community, evidenced by the New Zealand Native Orchid Group Journal article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets both WP:CREATIVE and the WP:GNG. Absolutely no WP:BLP concern. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and is certainly a notable Southland artist. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to be notable and sources used are reliable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2022 (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.