Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Joan Batham

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Joan Batham

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), one off in a who's-who Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can I suggest that you withdraw the AfD, please, as per Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)? Schwede 66 07:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a number of sources that describe her as a past president of the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the subject of an odd disappearance. Having connection issues at home, but will add some sources once I'm typing on something besides a phone. I found a number of refs by searching for Betty Batham instead of her full name. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I have thus moved the page. Schwede 66 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether we regard DNZB by itself as enough, the FRSNZ (which should be added, with proper sources, to the article) makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added sources related to the RSNZ. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:13, 11 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.