Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inez Pearn

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Pearn

[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:AUTHOR. There is a claim to notability due to her husbands, but notability is not inherited. The Jackson source (British Women and the Spanish Civil War) mentions her only in passing in the context of her "lesser known novel" and for being someone's wife. The two portraits of her (painting and photograph) were both made becasue she happened to be someone's wife. Pontificalibus 13:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She definitely meets WP:AUTHOR #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The fact that the only review cited in the article is from a blog does not mean that reviews in reliable contemporary sources do not WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources we need to find evidence of them. I tried but with no luck.--Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What an absurd nomination. Check Google Books, for example this.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that source in my nomination, which you appear not to have read. It doesn't discuss her in detail outside the context of her being the wife of a notable husband.-- Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add the sources I found as citations (and some quotes from reviews). I found them by searching the British Newspaper Archive, initially (I have not yet searched academic journals). Searching on Google by her nom de plume and the titles of her books, I do find some sources, for example British Women and the Spanish Civil War [1] and some results in Newspapers.com, eg [2] (no content visible without a subscription, which I have, and will also search), an index to The Spectator for the first half of 1946 (again needs a subscription, but shows that a review exists), etc. Google doesn't have access to all digitised newspapers and journals, so is not a good indication of contemporary coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am revising the article, so it may look rather unfinished as I move and edit content. I note that this article was only 2 days old when it was AfDed, and it went straight to AfD without being tagged for notability, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that substantial coverage of her life is based on what she herself achieved. It is the mention of her husband that is in passing. It is immaterial whether a description of her life is on account of just one of her books. As for the portraits, I'm not sure they contribute to an assessment of her notability but they are relevant to an article about Pearn as a person. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, article reflects this with references and reviews of her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep books got reviewed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 7 January 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.