Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie Bonnell

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 per WP:SNOW. I don't see why we need to drag this one out any longer. The only delete opinion is more of a disagreement with our underlying policies and guidelines than it is an argument over whether the subject meets those policies and guidelines, and so is misplaced here. The question of whether this should be moved can be decided separately. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Bonnell[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability - where is this precedent established? Lettler^hello 18:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore it should include topics found in encyclopedias, such as the Dictionary of National Biography. (Despite the name, DNB is not a dictionary.) In my experience, topics which appear in other reputable encyclopedias are very rarely deleted. pburka (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ANYBIO #C3: The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. Spicy (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pburks's accurate analysis and because multiple obits in major newspapers make a prima facie case for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. I don't accept the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability argument. Also that's the only source given so no WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Spicy, above, @Mztourist:, WP:ANYBIO #C3: The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. So a DNB entry is both a de facto (evidenced by all the keeps on this page) and a de jure indicator of notability. I hope you will now modify your acceptance parameters to come into line with long published wikipedia guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious notability once you account for Sadie being a nickname (of Sara) and Bonnell being her maiden name (later Talbot). Obit in The Telegraph (reprint - [1]), entries in books ([2]), and Dictionary of National Biography. The article could have a better title for Sara 'Sadie' Talbot (nee Bonnell). Vici Vidi (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move: ODNB + broadsheet obits, clear notability. Should be at Sadie Talbot, needs redirects from Sara Talbot etc. (Will make the redirects now but not move it during AfD) PamD 08:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps leave at existing title: it's her name while she was doing her notable work as she married in 1919... PamD 08:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it isn't cited (I'd do it myself if I had full access to the sources) but she has a Telegraph obit and an entry in the DNB, from what I can see there is enough in them for SIGCOV to be met, so she meets the GNG. SOLDIER isn't relevant here. Perhaps someone at Women in Red has access to the sources and would like to tidy it up? I've dropped them a line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A DNB entry is a definite pass of WP:GNG. Always has been by long consensus. Likewise an obit in a newspaper of record. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she passes WP:SIGCOV by virtue of ODNB entry and obituaries in national newspapers in my opinion. I've added details from ODNB - now available with a package of other resources with a few clicks via Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Databases which is superhandy. Thanks to nominator for proposal to delete, this article was in quite a shoddy condition before. Mujinga (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd nomination given the ample evidence of notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insufficient reason to reject first-class sources out of hand. Gamaliel (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB is ample evidence of notability alone - anything else is gravy. (Mmmmm, gravy...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #C3, per comments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.