Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Broun

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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Broun

Is the mother of a poet, but I don't think that makes her notable herself per WP:BIO. Written by editor who appears to have the same last name, so probably WP:VAIN too. Leuko 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and allow to develop. the parents of burns have some interesting ties with Lord Monboddo and robert burns visited (and wooed) monboddo's daughter at Monboddo House. there are data regarding interactions of robert burns parents with monboddo. Anlace 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep What makes Agnes Broun notable is the enormity of Burns' place in Scottish culture. She's not just the mother of any old poet. Burns is the poet of a nation. Agnes Broun may not be on the level of John Shakespeare, but from a reseacher's and literary scholar's point of view, her story is a valuable side-note, a fact confirmed by the archival interest in her life. For the record, I am not related to Agnes Broun. Finally, because of Burns' demi-god status, Agnes Broun has become a folk figure.--Wbroun 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as it currently stands to her son's page. If there's enough information to warrant a separate article, spin it out after it's been written there. If all she is is a side-note (valuable or not), then she'd do better as a side-note on her son's page. BigHaz 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(following the expansion) Weak merge to her son's page. There's more information about her, which is a great thing to see, but I'm still not totally convinced that she's notable for any reason than the fact of her son's fame. The fact that more information has been added, though, weakens my original leaning. BigHaz 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep what wbroun said is true. Agnes Broun is important to any resaercher or scholar who wants to learn more about Burns. I think she passes WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part/s of WP:BIO? BigHaz 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two, that I can see, maybe another, though I'd have to research.

• 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
• 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

And

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

I'm sure that there are some academic papers out there, though, as I said, I'd have to look. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

She may get through on the last one, but I just have a feeling that the majority of people out there who'll be after information on her would be happy with a paragraph or two in her son's article. As it's currently written (and I'll accept it as a work in progress) the only thing anyone could gain from reading the article is that she was Robbie's mother and outlived him - the second point of which is mildly interesting in itself. BigHaz 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "paragraph or two" on the main Burns article would be digressive and, frankly, disruptive of the narrative of the poet's life. As far as the article not appealing to a majority of info-gatherers, I stand guilty as charged. The piece, which is well-supported, is aimed at Burns scholars and serious enthusiasts, those who wish to "dig deeper" than the standard Burns-o-pedia entry. --Wbroun 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with adding a section to the bottom of Burns' own article entitled "family" and writing that he was descended from the Brouns and that his mother Agnes [insert rest of article here]? BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the article stands it offers no more than a genealogical connection. Nuttah68 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Robert Burns because this article is very short. I agree that this content belongs on Wikipedia due to Burns' importance but not as an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her notability has been established above, and I'm sure there's much more to be written. Having a short article is not a reason to delete. SliceNYC 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please Note I have now expanded this article as planned. I intend to add more, as time permits, for the edification and interest of scholars of Burns and Scottish folklore.--Wbroun 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Google scholar search for "Agnes Broun" as a phrase finds no academic papers, and four bools: two on Robert Burns, one Register of Wills and Inventories, and one on Early Modern Witches. I'm not certain if the last two are about her, but clearly any notability is from being Robert's mom, not independent. GRBerry 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One cannot be too surprised not to find any academic paper on Agnes Broun, esp. of those listed on Google scholar search. She will always be a minor figure of literary history and folklore, not the sort of person on which academic careers are built. Still, those academics and lay-scholars wanting to learn more about Burns will find joy and interest in learning more about his mother. If not on Wiki, where else? It's a little hard to grasp why one would want to suppress such information, tho I am totally new to Wiki, so I probably am misunderstanding some aspect of protocol.--Wbroun 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to put information on her is into an article on her son at the moment. There are other examples of historical figures with peripherally interesting family members having their biographies expanded with information on the family member. That way the information itself remains "unsuppressed". BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. Some of the info would certainly work in Robbie's article, but much of it just doesn't fit. There is a great spectrum of notability, and Agnes is on the lighter side, but Burns' scholars and enthustiasts will take interest nonetheless in these small gems. Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself and wear out my welcome -- I think I've said all I can in this debate. I appreciate people's interest in Burns and his family.--Wbroun 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep—Notability is not a formal policy, and the concept of notability is always contentious. A fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without original research. Am comfortable that this meets the criterion. That the article's author may be related does not invalidate the material; it only invites closer scrutiny. Williamborg (Bill) 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears that the subject is notable, per the monument in her name and per Mark Twain's referenc eto her. Per WP:N, "Notability cannot be measured for some historical and international topics". Remembering that schooling in those days is somewhat different to today, Broun, as the primary influence on Robbie Burns, could arguably passes WP:BIO, WP:PROF, IMHO. Ohconfucius 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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.