Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constance Holland

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. Possibly merge but consensus for that should be established on the talk page. W.marsh 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constance Holland

Constance Holland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Contested {{prod}} ("nn biography; no indication of any historical importance other than possibly having notable relatives. Wikipedia is not a genealogical index."). Prod template removed and with note on talk page, "All of these are famous historical people, and articles for those in the line of descent are widespread throughout the historical articles. Look at some, like the ones cited. If you doubt the criteria, try Afd and the historians will join the discussion.". I'd consider that to be an appeal to WP:INN and appeal to authority (assumes all "historians" would oppose AfD - can't say that I'd agree). I'm also not nominating "all these" people, only this person who seems to have done nothing of little importance other than marrying well. Also of concern is that the article is unverified and unsourced. Agent 86 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Constance Holland as distinct lack of notibility that totally fails WP:BIO.--Dacium 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon my confusion, but do you mean that this should be merged into some other article? Your comment seems to say merge the article into itself. Agent 86 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant move to Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk, she is only notable having married him.--Dacium 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, unless more information asserting notability is provided. Being a middle-age noble doesn't autamatically make you notable. MaxSem 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep in line with other similar articles, which is not an expression of INN just of some minimal degree of consistency. INN is not policy. it is not a guideline. It is an essay, and therefore merely a personal opinion. Further, the talk page at INN shows no signs of consensus. & even the author of the essay says it was only put forth tentatively. DGG 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Merge and redirect per nom Dacium. According to: Sir Leslie Stephen, ed.. The Dictionary of National Biography Founded in 1882 by George Smith, Vol. I-XX, XXII, London, England: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922, she was the wife of Sir John Grey and had two sons, Edmund (Earl of Kent) and Thomas (Baron of Rougemont). (Not just one as noted in the unsourced article in question.) She is not otherwise mentioned in this source and does not appear to be notable in her own right. There are other places to look for information about individuals such as this, primarily genealogical works. -Butseriouslyfolks 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I thank Butseriouslyfolks for the correction. I located the source for the article and inserted it; it is an online version of two standard reliable sources considered as reliable as the DND. The portion online indicated additional children but did not include the name, so I added the second son on the authority of the reference here. I have also added context--go check the article again. She was closely related to the English Royal family. There is an interlocking series of these articles for the Royal family and its close relatives, of which this article is a link. There is no reason for the chain to be disrupted. It can be said that the chain needs to be looked at again and many articles done more carefully, but that is true of many of the articles in WP. if not all of them. I I have just notified the previous 3 editors on the page of the AfD, using the standard templates, which do not indicate any suggestion of how to vote. (The nominator really should have done this, but failed to. Its not a policy, but a/c AFD, "it is considered civil") DGG 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Correction, the main editor was notified, I also notified the other two. Sorry, Agent86.DGG 20:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Agent 86 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk, per Dacium. There is no notability by association nor marriage, and the article fails to state any notability, other than having been documented in geneological works. Ohconfucius 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • these works are the standard sources--all historians use them, except for really specialized work. further can be added, but this gets into specialized literature and unpublished material very fast. By your criterion, you will end up with articles on all the men and very few of the women. Please take a look at the series of interlocking articles--use the series box. DGG 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that's ok. For better or worse, history has essentially ignored the deeds of the women of that era, rendering most of them non-notable. Users will still find information about the women as they are mentioned in the articles about the men. There's no need for interlocking articles of this nature. There are more appropriate places for that sort of thing. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is OK, even in tertiary sources like WP, since the basic information can be found and verified, but to actually find citable specific secondary source information on the women, while not impossible, is so difficult that I am not going to pursue it here, on the principle of WP:SNOWBALL. I'll stick to actual children of Kings, as she was only a niece. Anyway the title of her husband was entered wrong--I discovered that he is known in contemporary reference sources (the 2007 DNB) as Thomas Mowbray, 2nd Earl of Nottingham. The relevant page has been moved, and you might as well merge her to the right guy. I haven't changed the links above, because the redirects will work--If they should be changed --as links in articles are being changed, then change them. DGG 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep Great-granddaughter of Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainaut, granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Blanche of Lancaster, daughter of John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter and the article you decide to merge it with is her obscure husband Thomas Mowbray, 2nd Earl of Nottingham? I think if anything he was only notable for marrying her and thus gaining a connection to the Royal family. User:Dimadick

I cannot agree with the implied suggestion that any great-grandchild of any king should be included solely because of her relation to the royal family, without any requirement that the subject be notable in the subject's own right. Wikipedia is not a directory of members of the extended royal family. Giving her husband a royal connection may be the most significant act history has preserved from her life. Her husband's article would also be the logical place to refer to the couple's children. IMHO. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very relevant when the King happens to be Edward III of England as pointed by the Wars of the Roses. But she had no children from Mowbray. Her only known children were by her more notable second husband, Sir John Grey. Why should Nottingham be considered as more important? User:Dimadick

Right in this case the dynastic relationships are critical in English history of the period--and they are furthermore the basis of Shakespeare's history plays. It is not easy to clarify the relationships without discussing the women as well; especially in connection with their dowries of landed property and their second or third marriages, the heiresses all throughout the middle ages & early modern period were central to the formation of major family fortunes.

In 21st century society such relationships may not be very important, but they were in that earlier period. It isn't mere genealogy in the modern sense. The ODNB articles discuss this in detail. DGG 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP Policy also addresses this issue. "Biography articles should only be given for people with some sort of achievement." -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If I'm being remembered 500 years after my death I'd take that for notability. Also, per DGG. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't imagine what might be the benefit of deleting an article about this person. AllanBColson 07:48, 30 January 2007 (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.