Talk:Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-04. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
- She was a Socialist, perhaps this makes her notable, given her position.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- no!--Vintagekits 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes.--Counter-revolutionary 10:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No, actualy a noblewoman is a term used for a woman of noble rank, a peer, as according to the article she was only a councillor then the discription dosent apply in this case.--padraig3uk 10:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lady is a title of nobility. Add to that she had a position in the Order of Precedence = she was a noblewoman. Astrotrain 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
Will User:Vintagekits please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Other non-royal names, article 6; "Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory. ". I believe that Lady Mabel is always as Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam/Smith. Taking this is away is completly unnecessary and certainly not inline with MoS like User:Vintagekits is suggesting with his usual POV. --Berks105 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the MOS and its provisions - however, this is not one of the exceptions and she is not "universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it". --Vintagekits 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let's face it, Lady Mabel isn't that well known. The people that do know her will know her as Lady. --Berks105 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have just argued against her point. 1. if she isnt well know as LMF then the article shouldnt be called it. 2. If she if that unknown maybe i should AfD it again! --Vintagekits 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. Many people on Wikipedia are not well known. 90% of MPs are unknown to the general public, especially former MPs, but they still deserve articles. And the people that have heard of Lady Mabel will call her that, no one will known her as Mabel Fitzwilliam/Smith. --Berks105 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have just argued against her point. 1. if she isnt well know as LMF then the article shouldnt be called it. 2. If she if that unknown maybe i should AfD it again! --Vintagekits 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let's face it, Lady Mabel isn't that well known. The people that do know her will know her as Lady. --Berks105 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "who was a pioneer in education and social welfare"
This is an exceptional claim - why or how was she a pioneer if these fields? Additonals as it is an exceptional claim it needs to be attributed as she is not (from my searches) known as this by any main stream sources, therefore I added a [attribution needed] tag - but these were removed without the attribution being made. I know its referenced but as it is not a generally accepted fact it needs to be attributed. If it is not attributed then I am going to remove the claim.--Vintagekits 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
