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 both WP:SNOW and WP:BEFORE (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Totah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. Original editor claims referenced obituary is evidence of notability. As written, being a prioress of an abbey in and of itself is not notable. Article should have at least some mention of what makes her wiki worthy and right now, I don’t see anything that distinguishes her from any other nun in the same position. Edit summary indicates obit is evidence of notability n. I’ve seen obituaries that talk only about how the person was a little league coach, Boy Scout den mother, volunteered at their house of worship. A newspaper writing an obituary (and I mean not the paid kind) in and of itself does not make you notable. If this obituary discussed notable parts of this woman’s life, it should be in the article. And said obituary requires a subscription so I am unable to verify as I am unwilling to subscribe. BostonMensa (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With an obituary in The Times, any such subject always passes WP:GNG. There is also a Daily Telegraph obit, reviews of her books etc. See WP:BEFORE. AfD is not clean-up! Edwardx (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as 5 minutes Googling would have shown her to be self-evidently notable. This nomination is lazy and misconceived. I see that Bloomsbury issued a collected edition of her writings recently which was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement here. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEYMAN, though the Times obit (unlike many other obits) is pretty much a pass for notability anyway: the creating editor has now added two further sources, and the one which is not firewalled has great scope for expanding the article. It's pity they didn't add these sources, and expand the article from them, earlier: I can see that categories were deleted because they weren't supported by content, although the new Catholic Herald article supports them. Clearly notable. PamD 10:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Original editor is right. Unpaid obit in international newspaper is strong evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - BostonMensa, how about you withdraw this so we can all move on? StAnselm (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to read the Telegraph and The Times obits in ProQuest via the Wikipedia library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/82/, they're the first two hits when I search for her name Piecesofuk (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thanks for the reminder. Article now enhanced from the Times obit. PamD 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sad that I had to work so hard to have an article improved. And while I will not do as St. Anselm requested amd withdraw this, I am glad the article has improved and if people who know more about both Mary Torah and religion in general believe she is wiki worthy, I will not contest the decision to keep the article. BostonMensa (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. You don't appear to have learned anything from this episode. In my experience, when you are in the wrong it is best to accept it with good grace and move on. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2021 (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.