Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)

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. It's not the strongest consensus by any means, but the arguments for retention seem to outweigh those for deletion. - KrakatoaKatie 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)
Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Attempts to discuss the notability of this person have been either ignored or reverted. The defense for Lady Mabel's notability is based on her title and her political career. At the moment she is the granddaughter/sister of nobility with no title of her own, failing WP:BIO (and that even failed the proposed WP:NOBLE (which also failed)), and also was local politician, again failing WP:BIO Vintagekits 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Keep. Rotherham council (hardly a bastion of reaction - part of what was once known as the 'People's Republic of South Yorkshire') mentions her here as one of the Rotherham Greats. Personally I think it's interesting that a scion of the nobility ended up as a social worker and running Workers' Educational Association classes. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - local councillors fail WP:N! Then claim that because she was a social worker is notable - what planet are you on? P.S. The "Rotherhams Greats" page also includes Marco who was a bear in a zoo - get a grip of yourself, is this was wiki has slumped to? P.P.S. Just to clarify she didnt run the Workers' Educational Association she ran classes for the Workers' Educational Association in the town of Maltby --Vintagekits 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't want to get into a ping-pong discussion with you Vintagekits, so I'll post this then stop and let others decide between our arguments! The good thing as far as I'm concerned about notability is that we (you, I and other editors) don't have to decide on it. What we need to do if we're editing well is to find citations to reliable secondary sources. The Rotherham Council page cited above is an official page from a local government body. It lists 34 entries of 'Rotherham Greats' from the 20th century. Yes, a stuffed bear is one of them and a ship another! But the other 32 are all noted with apparent affection and respect by the Council. I think Rotherham Council is better placed than you or I to judge notability for a local figure like this (even if I'm typing this ten miles from Rotherham...) I may never have heard of her before today, and you may not like her aristocratic origins, but a reliable external source calls her notable. Over to you for the last word... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that she fails WP:N - that much is obvious and your arguments that she is listed on the Rotherham page is fine but this is wiki, here on wiki we have our own criteria for assessing notability and dont seem to have the same criteria are the local council in Rotherham!.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - nominated before. The result was Keep. She was very well known in her day, and just because certain editors aren't aware of that it does not detract from the notability. There are external sources, even though many of them do not, I agree, appear on the internet, unfortunately.--Counter-revolutionary 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, The other AfD was keep because you and your cabal hi-jacked it (they will be along here again soon). Now can you explain per wiki policy why this person is notable. Additonally if there are other off line sources that prove her notability then please feel free to add these - but you cant say that the article should be kept because there are unlisted off line sources - either get the sources or dont! If you are unaware of the criteria that you should be applying here then please read the Politicians section of the Criteria for notability of people--Vintagekits 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not really add to your argument to harass and respond to every comment made here, just some advice.--Counter-revolutionary 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a discussion not a vote - if you fail to address the substantive issue and prefer to avoid the notability issue then I have a right (if not a duty) to highlight this.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete*Having taken the advice and read the criteria I can't see where she fits into it.Coeur-sang 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) [1] Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--Vintagekits 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • "Not having edited the article does not deprive one of the right to comment." [2] Just what was your point Astrotrain re Coeur-sang edit history? -Domer48 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That there's something "dodgy" about contributing infrequently and specifically to Afd's made by Irish Republicans.--Counter-revolutionary 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. -Counter-revolutionary comment is a little less subtle than this,[3] but equally irrelevant. What is the point you are trying to make? Can you explaine it to me, of is it another cas of Ní duintear fuil as tornap. Myself I find them a great way to learn policies, in a practical way. But comments like that above lends nothing to the discussion, and just assumes bad faith. Regards --Domer48 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As you'll see, Counter-revolutionary, I think like you that this article should stay. But using 'arguments' like this against other editors is despicable. I presume that you are a fellow-Englishman/woman; you bring no credit on our country when you comment in this way. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is full of socks, at least one of whose master is obvious, and no apologies needed for the good faith actions of Counter-revolutionary and Astrotrain in trying to see justice prevail in this sustained anti-Brit campaign, SqueakBox 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given one of the accounts you've labelled as a sock is clearly Canadian I'd say your comments are an indication of how desperate some of the "keep" voters are. They refuse to actually discuss the notability of the article, ignore notability guidelines and throw sockpuppet allegations without any foundation. One Night In Hackney303 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. when you say one of the accounts is Canadian have you done a check user or are merely assuming good faith? Personally I feel no desperation to keep Lady Mabel but I do want to see justice done and identifying newbie SPA's in such an afd is standard, I would equally suport outing any keep socks, SqueakBox 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You've accused the editor in question of being a sock of Vintagekits, I'd suggest it is you who should be requesting a checkuser. Put up or shut up! One Night In Hackney303 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please remain civil (which telling me to shut up is not), SqueakBox 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable, SqueakBox 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Having also just read the Criteria, IMO she does not meet the requirements to be on the site. If we aren't going to follow the requirements is there a point to having them?Maplecelt 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The above user has only made about 10 edits [4], notably on other controversial AfD's by User:Vintagekits--Counter-revolutionary 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails to have the secondary coverage required by WP:BIO. The one book cited cannot be counted as a biography of M.F., for all I can see. --B. Wolterding 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Doesn't quite meet WP:N by being on a local council or by whom she was related to. No newspaper or book articles are presented to show she was notable for being a socialist. Edison 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not worthy of an article. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: a notable and interesting individual. Why am I surprised at the identity of the nominator? David Lauder 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, please comment on why he is notable rather than the nominator - I tried to discuss the notability before nominating this article. Also I could say why am I not surprised that you have turned up here. Lets hope that once your cabal have gotten your !votes out of the way we can then see what the communty thinks. --Vintagekits 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
He is not surprised by the identity of the nominator as it is the same nominator who brought about the first afd, which resulted in keep. It discussed notability and resulted in a keep.--Counter-revolutionary 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and interesting - don't care about some arbitrary criteria -Docg 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This page has the look and feel of the usual suspects trying to remove reference to notable British people from Wikipedia, and harassing anyone who votes against them. --Gibnews 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, thank you for commenting on the editors and not even having an opinion on her notability despite !voting "Strong keep". --Vintagekits 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Its no problem, That the article is notable is self-evident. However as you seem to spend a lot of time trying to delete articles you could consider nominating some of the pages describing people whose notability is solely based on membership of proscribed organisations. --Gibnews 07:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete due to insufficient non-trivial sources. Relies excessively on one source, which is scarecely a major one. Of course, as an Englishman from a thousand-year-old school and whose wife's grandmother ran for parliament and cut George Brown's majority to 4,000 I am, needless to say, strongly biased against any English minor nobility. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I've never been one to love discussing WP:BIO concerns, but the lack of "multiple independent sources" et al part is what closes it for me. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there is nothing Notable about this person.--padraig3uk 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For this article some good research seems to have been done, and there is accordingly some particular things to say. Someone said above that social workers are inherently not notable, but WP covers people in all professions. the work she did is explained in the article. I've noticed something curious about unconscious bias--the people themselves in a field or from a background are as likely to think almost everyone else from the same profession or background non-notable as to think almost all of them notable--it can go either way. As a librarian I can see thinking all my colleagues important, or alternatively none of them really any more important than myself. DGG 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I really didnt fully understand anything you said there. I dont think anyone said the social workers cannot be notble, what is more likely is that social worker do not gain automatic nobility - I would agree this, would you disagree, I would say they are notable if it can be shown that they made some breakthrough in the field of social work. What did she do that was notable in the field of social work? This is about notability - why is she notable?--Vintagekits 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- an important and significant noblewoman, with distinctions in her field, sourced and verifiable. Astrotrain 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep well-sourced article about notable events. JJL 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable ironically for being an aristocrat turned socialist, had a Times obituary Sept. 28th, 1951 (also, the article should be titled Lady Mabel Smith shouldn't it?). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets minimum requirements for verifiable references, and it is an interesting article. The Times obit needs to be used as a ref. Tyrenius 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable for being an elected politician of interest. TamB
  • Obvious keep. Reasons given above by others. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very interesting and well researched article. Could do with a slight rewrite to make it more readable, though. Tryde 08:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep well referenced article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IP198 (talk • contribs).
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.