Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lucretia Dobbin

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 delete. Per Fram, after deletion, I'll be creating a redirect to Sheridan Le Fanu ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lucretia Dobbin

[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)

No independent notability, a family member of some notable people. The only thing she is "remembered" for is stealing a dagger, an anecdote of very limited notability in itself, and not enough to base an article on. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some references to her writing career and I suspect there may be quite a bit more out there in offline sources and biographies of Sheridan Le Fanu. Agree the dagger anecdote is very weak. Article should probably be renamed Emma Le Fanu. Tacyarg (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In general this seems suited to Ancestry.com or Thepeerage.com or similar platform - which cover peers and other people who are notable primarily for their relations or associations than on their own merits. The proposed "secondary" notability claim (writer) does not seem to meet the threshold expected of WP:AUTHOR (in that her works do not seem to have been broadly published, significantly impactful, or otherwise represent "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work".) The references/links in the article are largely passing/trivial mentions than significant discussions on the author or her works. Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2019 (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.