Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret MacLean (civil servant)

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. Sandstein 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret MacLean (civil servant)[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)

The only source in the article is not independent. It's an obituary written by the brother and a friend of the subject. I could not find any coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject to meet our general notability guidelines. I first tried moving the article to draft so it could be incubated but that move was reverted. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete family written death notices do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Is my understanding of previously established consensus correct: that family submitted death notices in local papers are not considered reliable sources, but major write ups in national newspapers do have editorial oversight and therefore are considered reliable sources? (based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Obituaries)? CT55555 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of article published in a reliable source subject to editorial control may be valid as a source, but if it's authors are related to the subject (Brother and friend) it is not independent and therefore does not help establish notability and does not contribute towards meeting WP:GNG. The second source you added includes only a mere mention of the name in a list. It does not qualify as significant coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise the creator of this article to move it into draft, try to find some reliable, secondary sources that back up the museum founding or other work, and if you can find, move to main space. This is one of those scenarios where it seems like she should be notable, but we need at least more source or sources. I agree with Crystallizedcarbon above that my second citation isn't useful for notability, just fact verification. I respect the point that the obituary is not independent, but I do think that an obituary published in a national newspaper has some editorial oversight and should not be discounted as if it were a simple death notice. CT55555 (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly. While I'm all for the Women In Red Project, I'm surprised by this article getting through. It was clearly at the draft stage and even with the one obituary source from the Scotsman (regardless of the author) it doesn't meet WP:N. A lack of sufficient coverage, a lack of sources, etc. Which is a shame because while this woman contributed to the cultural history of Scotland, it's not enough to keep the article on Wikipedia. I tried looking for additional sources but didn't come up with any. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is not uncommon for British newspapers to ask friends/family to write the obituary of a notable deceased person. The Scotsman obit seems to fall into that category. Atchom (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2022 (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.