Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Ormsby-Gore

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 keep. No consensus for merging. Qst 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Ormsby-Gore

Alice Ormsby-Gore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A well written article who's subject fails WP:BIO. Throughout the article, and the references, the subject is refered to as daughter/sister/lover of. There is no indication of notability of her own and everything else falls foul of notability is not inherited. This extends to her obit which is titled 'Peer's sister 'overdosed on heroin' Nuttah68 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep based on the clout of the sources. I don't see how this can be put into the Eric Clapton article without mangling it. Perhaps it can be merged to the article on her parents. - Mgm|(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Smerge to her father's article. Half the article is about Clapton, half the article is half about other people in her life. Trim all that (Wm. the Conqueror? Who the hell cares?), trim the bit about their long-term live-in relationship, and merge that into Clapton's article which right now doesn't mention her at all (which seems quite wrong, if she was part of his heroin years). --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to her father's article (which I've already done) and to Clapton's. I can't see how to include it in the latter without screwing up the flow, but it should be in there somehow. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The peerage (not to mention royal bloodlines) is one of those odd cases where notability is hereditary (hence Time thinking it worth reporting that she was going to be attending an American school at age 15 ... ), but quite apart from that she was, as an "aristocratic hippy", a notable figure of 60s "Swinging London". --Paularblaster (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Also: meets the WP:N basic presumption: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should be tagged for notability rather than for deletion.
  • Keep - I don't see any difficulty with notability: she was famous just for being famous (like a great many other people). As Paularblaster points out, there is no difficulty with sources. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per HeartofaDog. Clearly meets WP:BIO, with plenty of sources. Her life may have been one of meaningless selebrity -through-association-with-celebrities, but she stills meets WP:BIO, and although Paularblaster is wrong to say that notability is hereditary, the sources are clear that she did attract substantial media coverage as an "aristocratic hippy" in 60s "Swinging London". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In the case of royals and peers notability clearly is hereditary (and often nothing but), simply because power, position and possessions are. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:04, 25 November 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.