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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Hill (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)

No credible claim of significance. Local character in Hamilton, New Zealand whose claim to fame is "frequenting the Frankton railway station" and being "feared by many children". Fails WP:GNG as, outside of an entry the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As background, Hill is included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and the people who appear there are usually considered notable. However, the DNZB includes a small number of people as representative of New Zealand society, and these people will not meet our notability standards. This is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)#Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (current). Hill may well be one of these representative entries, and I have no objection to the article being deleted after a discussion, but I declined a speedy deletion nomination because I thought this discussion needs to be held.-gadfium 05:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this article should be listed as one of the representative entries as part of the DNZB article. I have thus no objection to its deletion. Schwede66 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I believe that this woman is notable by virtue of appearing in the DNZB, I would not have created the article. Having said that if merge and redirect is done per Schwede to Dictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography#Representative_entries, please leave the machine readable persondata in the redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability in any undertaking, and no references beyond one source, which notes that it contains some biographies of non-notable people. Without at least one additional source and one notable undertaking in life this clearly doesn't meet notability standards.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep. I added two more sources to the article. I think Hill is a person of importance to New Zealand culture, and I would compare her to Ben Hana (the article on him has survived two deletion discussions), but because she died in the pre-internet era there is much less available information online. The most substantive source may be Coffee and bun, sergeant Bonnington and the tornado: myth and place in Frankton junction by Anna Green, published in 2001 (and perhaps again in 2004), but I have not been able to locate a copy. Her obituary in the Waikato Times 27 Aug. 1983, p 6 might also be worth chasing up, but I don't think an archive of this paper is available in Auckland (where I live).-gadfium 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded my recommendation due to additional sources found by Stuartyeates.-gadfium 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

§ Delete -even with refs, this article tells the reader nothing of any encyclopaedic value. This person existed, she had a nick-name and she frequented a rural NZ railway station. That could apply to thousands of people. The article needs to make clear what it is exactly that she is supposed to be notable for and have the refs to demonstrate it. Without it, this should be a simple deletion.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although an appearance in NZDB is generally considered wiki-notable, nothing in this article seems to justify that assumption. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per nominator. I agree that her obituary would be helpful, but I can't find it. Since she is mentioned in the DNZB, she should be notable. A passing mention in the representative entries of DNZB's Wiki article should be enough, until, and if, more sources are found. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ is essentially useless for things more recent than WWII and coverage is surprisingly patchy for things prior to that. National news made every newspaper in the country, so those things are findable, but coverage of local issues is poor. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a ~ 800 word story Searching for a lost soul By: IRVINE, Denise, Waikato Times, May 02, 1998 (it's in ebsco, if anyone else has access http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=WKP9805020141-BUN29-ED&site=ehost-live ) that focuses on the women, speculation about her life and attempts to track down people who knew her. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Light shed on mystery lady By: IRVINE, Denise, Waikato Times, May 09, 1998 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=WKP9805090141-COFFEE-ED&site=ehost-live with more biographically details. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In view of additional sources that have been found, I change my vote from "no objection to its deletion" to "keep". Gadfium's point of "a person of importance to New Zealand culture," comparing her to Ben Hana certainly resonates with me. Schwede66 01:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage listed in the article now and in the comments above is enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Willing to say Keep but would someone please fill in the article with some the info that's been unearthed during this discussion? Right now it's stubby to the point of not being very useful as an article. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (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.