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 no consensus. However, this can, and should, be renominated at any time should there be a consensus that the additional sources produced during this AfD are lacking. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A tribute, not a WP article. no actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added women project to the article talkpage so that participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Dinah Elizabeth Pearce. The present name implies that her father was an earl or above. Strictly she was Dinah Elizabeth, Lady Pearce. We do not normally include Sir in article titles, except baronets where the baronetcy is also part of her title. This should be applied to the wives of knight and baronets in the same way: they did not hold the title in their own right, only by marriage. However, inclusion in a one-volume biographical dictionary published by a university press ought to be sufficient evidence of her notability. I accept that we normally apply that rule to DNB and ODNB in UK, but we should not be too strict in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources in the article (Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women being a very good one), and online that allow her to pass GNG. If the article is too "tribute-y" we can rewrite. Govan Remembers, Bio by Pearce Institute, Timber and Plywood, Womanhood magazine, British Architect, George MacLeod. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Megalibrarygirl. Possible rename later once the AfD finishes. Montanabw^(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very quick Google search shows she appears to be notable independently of her husband in several ways: as founder of the Pearce Institute -- now recognised as an important community centre for Glasgow eg [1]; as a pioneer in women's representation on Scottish School Boards (preprint at blacklisted site) and in association with the "Fresh Air Fortnight" scheme [2]. I note this article was created as part of an initiative to address gender imbalance in coverage of Scottish women, which has received press coverage in the Scottish press: [3] -- this article states "Among other work was creating pages for others including Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce from Govan who founded the Pierce Institute and other organisations such as the Women's Peace Crusade and Glasgow Women's Housing Association." There are far too many Google hits under "Lady Pearce", "Dinah Pearce", "Dinah Elizabeth Pearce" &c to sort through them all properly, and doubtless offline sources also exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We will increase the coverage of Scottish women by writing articles about he ones who are actually notable, not the one who engage in minor local events--as the article truthfully says-- merely because of their husbands social position. It's not exactly a case of inherited notability, because I doubt he would be notable either. Minor country gentlemen & women are not usually, though they customarily do engage in local charities and receive the routine press coverage. As for the initiative, you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ...you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. No, I am not; I am merely mentioning this embarrassing situation, in case anyone cares to contact the people involved, as well as quoting an article that suggests Pearce might have founded two other organisations, for which my back-of-the-envelope search found no better evidence. As to her husband, if you had actually read any of the sources, he unimpeachably meets the notability requirements as an MP, if for no other reason. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Claim to notability is being the wife of a MP and founder of a un-notable institute. Most of her "bio" page on the Pearce website, which says "Although overshadowed historically by her husband, Lady Pearce was nevertheless held in extremely high regard by the people of Govan.", is taken up by a poem by a "local resident". If a similar article were made of a modern person with this kind of sources it would be quickly deleted. BigGuy88 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is either trivial coverage more about the building than the woman or not independent. I'm also not entirely sure if the Wordpress site meets WP:RS. I don't see enough in-depth treatment to merit an article under WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2016 (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.