Deletion of Elizabeth Mackay

Comment: It is established policy that DNB entrants pass the notability test, and whilst there is nothing about her story that makes her inherently notable the fact is that she has made it. If it was her daughter that made her so that does not matter -  does not mean that a subject is disqualified if their notability came about because of a relationship, just that a relationship does not in itself confer notability. There are actually quite a few entries in WP for foundation settlers and the like who would never make it if they had lived a similar life back home, but that is in the nature of things
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: let's be clear about this: the criterion is whether she's notable in her own right. Being someone's mother does not make her notable; being a woman and from New Zealand do not exclude her from notability, but do not of themselves guarantee inclusion: , OTINHERITED etc etc must take precedence over any automatic assumption of the total accuracy of the DNB, DNZB or any other DNxxxB - they might get it wrong occasionally. Unfortunately, it seems the DNZB's criteria are not always as strict as the DNB's (and even that could surely make a rare mistake), so simply being in there isn't sufficient: it has to be a good hint that a person might be notable, and a source of information; and telling us she's a homemaker and wrote about her daughter wouldn't cut the mustard from any country, sorry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: notability is . I read the entry in the DNZB, and still believe she is not notable. Her life was typical for the era, which makes it interesting for NZ history (and that's why it is included in the DNZB), but not as a biographical article in WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: As a side note, many of the ''Keep'' recommendations above seem to hinge on some form of . I invite those who have recommended ''keep'' take a look and see if they may want to expand their comments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Per DGG. The inclusion of the bio of this random person who was someone's mom in the NZ bio compilation is an indication of a lack of editorial judgement on the part of the editors of that compendium, and a reason to reject inclusion there as satisfaction of . Sorry, but we are the editors of Wikipedia, not some group of editors of the DNZB. Our standards are higher, apparently, than theirs. That compendium sounds more like a phone directory than a selective listing of notable persons. It is sufficient to mention her in her daughter's bio
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)