Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila Hurle

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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Hurle

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), culling from obit Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can I suggest that you withdraw the AfD, please, as per Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)? Schwede 66 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to provide a more convincing reason for keeping the article than a general reference to a non-binding proposed guideline page. High school teachers are rarely notable as academics, and one would have to demonstrate the subject of this article passing WP:BIO. There is one reference [1] in the article under consideration to a fairly detailed biographical article about her in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. It's not clear to me that this alone is sufficient, especially since the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography includes a lot of info about purely local figures, such as local council members, etc, who would not ordinarily be considered notable under WP:BIO in the absence of wider coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry mentioned above, I could not find any other significant coverage. Nothing in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. Even plain googling essentially only results in a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and copies/mirrors of the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry about her. I'd be happy to reconsider if someone finds more sources, but for now looks like does not pass either of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Schwede66. I've added five sources. Three are authoritative archival primary sources and two are book-length works with extensive coverage of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of and easy online access to a national newspaper archive makes it easier than usual for early New Zealanders to pass WP:GNG, and I think she qualifies. I added several newspaper sources to the article, covering a different headmaster appointment than the one already there as well as some remarkable performances on commonwealth-wide high school essay competitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets notability criteria NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 23:44, 20 December 2014 (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.