Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Warlock

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and no-one wanted to delete.

(non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Elizabeth Warlock

Withdrawn due to additional sources being found that achieve GNG BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[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)

It pains me because a cursory google search does very much seem to suggest she **should** be notable, but there's a major

WP:V

problem here.

https://geniimagazine.com/wiki/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Warlock

The above cites a handful of magazine pages in which she is mentioned, but the awards she's won seem to be non-notable, and I can't find any copies of those magazines on archive.org or elsewhere.

On that basis, I must sadly conclude a failure of

WP:INHERITED. If someone can find any copies of those magazines, it would be a good contribution to Wikipedia BrigadierG (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Magic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources. She won a bunch of awards, although I don't think any of them are wikipedia notable.

She's mentioned in google books, for example here in 1977 for being the only woman at a magic event.

Canadian Review. (1977). Canada: Pomeroy, Carter.. Likewise I added another passing mention to the article that notes how unusual it was to be a woman magician in 1983. She was the first woman to win one of the awards.

It's borderline, but I think we can say the Birmingham Evening Mail source is significant coverage, the rest are not, but combined might meet
WP:GNG. To me she is most notable as a woman trailblazer in a man's world. Waiting for other comments before !voting. CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Great work, thank you very much for apparently doing what I was unable to. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination on the back of these sources. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A fantastic result. Thanks for withdrawing. CT55555 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found the best sources on the Wikipedia Library and its link to ProQuest. Most editors can access both for free. CT55555 (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'm an engineer - this librarian stuff is new to me, but I'm learning fast. BrigadierG (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think of the wikipedia library as a searchable database of things that is normally behind paywalls. Think of it as an alternative to Google. And then think of ProQuest as another alternative whereby it tends to have historical news articles, while the main library tends to have academic stuff, but does also have news and books. CT55555 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 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.