Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Owen (plantswoman)

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) Sam Sailor 15:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Owen (plantswoman)[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)

Article about person seemingly lacking in notability. WP:BEFORE brings up one obit and mentions in specialty blogs. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as this seems to be some sort of pointy reprisal for a disagreement elsewhere. And notice that the nominator has not even had the courtesy to notify the article's creator. As for the subject, she is clearly notable per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She was covered in detail in a recent TV show that I happened to watch and, when I followed up, I soon found a detailed account of her life. That's two respectable sources and it is easy to find more coverage such as this account of a plant that she discovered and named after her husband. You can see the woman herself in action here. There is now a snowdrop named in her honour, as reported here. Andrew D. (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that I'm acting out of bad faith. Better focus on the AfD, Andrew D., and avoid personal attacks. In that discussion we had a disagreement of viewpoints, which should not be earth shaking news, especially in Wikipedia! In the discussion, this article was mentioned and I looked it up. And assessed it as an AfD candidate. Simple as that. There is absolutely no agenda behind the nomination. Simmer down, please, and allow the process to develop. And take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that other discussion, The Gnome attacked me without even mentioning the content in question. See WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "attack", was actually a warning not to take the path of advocacy as you stated you would. You believe women are under-represented in Wikipedia? Fine, take it up in the appropriate forums. Do not fight such a battle in AfDs and RfCs. It's not the place for such a struggle. And don't start articles on a whim. (To quote you, "I shall now go off and start another article about a woman"! Seriously? As if starting articles is a game or some kind of a political statement.) No one's "attacking" you. Suggesting strongly that you lay off the politicking in this space is good advice. -The Gnome (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added to the article and think the Veitch Memorial Medal means she meets WP:ANYBIO first point. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Tacyarg & Andrew Davidson --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are a clear indication of their notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: In 2010, she was awarded the honor of Most Excellent Order of the British Empire MBE, rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences. Netherzone (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the MBE is not considered to confer automatic notability. That would require a CBE or above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But that obit was in a major national newspaper and that is always held to be sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2018 (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.