Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Frances Andrews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. MuZemike 23:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Margaret Frances Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " This is community consensus expressed in policy and quoted here by me, not my personal opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability has been established by references. Everyone, this is Drawn Some, my personal wikistalker. If you have a comment about his behavior and the nomination today of what will be about a dozen of my articles please comment here. A month or so ago he nominated another dozen articles that I had created, all were kept, most were speedy kept. The situation has arisen from me voting to keep articles that he had voted on, or nominated to delete several months ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the references verify her existence, but to call this notability is stretching the definition too far. She was engaged and then married, so what? Fram (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See my comment below. Omegastar (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have zero interest in the subject but it passes the notability test. (This nomination seems to be part of some obscure feud. See User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), scroll to the bottom and work up. Not that that is relevant to this discussion.) A notable socialite and prize winning show dog breeder in the early 20th century, whose life was followed with interest by readers of the New York Times in those days. Notability does not expire. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not making judgements on any sort of possible vendetta by the nominator, but this doesn't meet WP:GNG because the sources are not significant mentions. Being a socialite who got married does not further important notability through any of the more specific rulesets (WP:ANYBIO for example.) Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had swallow hard to accept that however trivial the subject is, it does meet the notability criteria. See this source cited in the article. Breathless gossip about the rich and famous, famous for being rich. The reason the subject was covered in the gossip columns, some of which still survive on the internet almost a century later, and the reason it deserves an article are the same: people are interested in it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (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.