Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Morrison

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. Daniel (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Jenny Morrison is not notable. Just because you are the wife of a prime minister doesn't make you notable. JJK2000 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent reliable sources over an extended period. As the 29th spouse of the prime minister of Australia, 28 of whom have articles, one wonders why Morrison alone should be singled out. (No, this is not an WP:OSE argument since "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability".) WWGB (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Given that the article includes multiple references to reliable sources on Ms Morrison, it is obvious that WP:BIO is met. As she is the wife of the PM, it can be safely assumed that many more references are available. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep existing sources demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The above comments convince me that the subject of this article is certainly notable. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO and many more references likely available. This is the second article this user has nominated where there is clear sourcing available - their only argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Deus et lex (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NOTINHERITED doesn't apply if you pass WP:GNG, which she clearly does. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BLP subject is a figure of regular attention and controversy in the Australian media. — JEREMY 04:48, 3 March 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.