Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes

I can find no precedent on titles and notability. IMO merely being in possesion of a title through birth does not make a person notable. Other than the title, the only other claim appears to be Jane Fellowes relationship to Diana, Princess of Wales. Nuttah68 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Simply being in possession of a minor title through birth does not make her notable. Being the sister of Diana, Princess of Wales does. People do become notable through their close connection with world famous people. Dodi Al-Fayed, for example, would not have an article if he had just been "one of the producers" of Chariots of Fire and had been killed in a car crash with his girlfriend. He's notable because he was the son of the famous Mohamed Al-Fayed, and, even more so, because he was linked with the much more famous Diana. Frances Shand Kydd would not have an article if she had not been Diana's mother; Peter Shand Kydd would certainly not have an article if he had not married Diana's mother. Charles Ingalls and his wife Caroline are not notable in their own rights; but people who are interested in Laura Ingalls Wilder will want to read about "Pa" and "Ma". In what way is Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence notable in her own right? The answer is, she isn't. But all these people are or were associated with someone so famous that readers are likely to want to look up information about them as well. AnnH ♫ 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - but only if she's notable enough for someone to take the time to expand the article and provide sources. I personally don't feel that she's encyclopaedic enough, so I'm not going to take the time. Akradecki 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per AnnH's comments. Subject has notability to those interested in Diana, Princess of Wales. Scorpiondollprincess 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per most of the above. 23skidoo 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with Possible Rename -- "Who are Princess Di's siblings?" would be a legitimate encyclopedia question. The article is short, very not bio-spam. However, given the lack of other Jane Fellowes, it could be moved to Jane Fellowes, though I would defer to the UK/GBR/English peerage naming conventions. Certainly Baroness Fellowes is not a worldwide notable title. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "Who are Princess Di's siblings?" would be a legitimate encyclopedia question." It would be, and the obvious place to look, and for the answer to be, would be on the Diana, Princess of Wales article. The reasonably common standard elsewhere is 'being related to someone notable is not enough in itself'. None of the arguments have satisfied why that should be excepted here, apart from 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales. People looking for thisinformation can find it there. Eluchil404 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: If we agree that people who are interested in Diana would want to look up information about her sisters, then I think that the idea of directing them to the article about Diana for such information is unsatisfactory, because we would either have to cut out some of the information or bloat the Diana article with off-topic stuff, which would make it less professional. It would be quite appropriate to put in Diana's article that her two elder sisters were . . . (names and dates of birth), but to give the names of Lady Jane's three children in Diana's article would be a little bizarre, and would stick out. I still think that Lady Jane and Lady Sarah (whom Nuttah68 also tagged with {{db-bio}}, although another editor changed it to {{bio-notability}} are at least as notable as Lady Amelia Windsor, Grace Ingalls, etc. AnnH ♫ 09:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, the fact that she is married with three children is not encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not a genealogy resource. As of now we are still in the position that there has been no claim of notability and the main argument for keep still appears to be 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Royal vanity, disgusting. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:55, 23 July 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.