Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maralyn Ramsay, Countess of Dalhousie
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maralyn Ramsay, Countess of Dalhousie
subject is the wife of the Earl of Dalhousie and approximately 690th in line to the British throne, and possibly something in the Imperial Russian house ;-). Ohconfucius 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ghits almost entirely pull Wikipedia and mirrors. Has this person actually done anything notable besides being born/married into incredibly diluted royalty? — NMChico24
04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Sorry, but I think King Ralph was higher in the succession line. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd like to see more references, but aside from that, I believe that the noble title automatically infers notability. Being within the top thousand of the royal class (pardon the pun) counts. ;) --Elonka 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. as WP:NOT Burke's Peerage; Elonka's rationale leaves me unconvinced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If the decision is to delete, my recommendation is that the information at least be merged into James Hubert Ramsay, 17th Earl of Dalhousie, or the previous Earl, Simon Ramsay, 16th Earl of Dalhousie, since it appears that there is already precedent to have a bio on each of the Earls, per Earl of Dalhousie (even if their wives are not seen worthy of bios). However, I still believe that Maralyn Ramsay satisfies the notability requirement on her own because of her other blood connections (including being in line to the throne by her own right, not just that of her husband). This may even be a case where the wife is more notable than the husband, though I'll admit that I'm not currently conversant enough on the details of these two individuals to make that determination myself (except it is telling that a Wikipedia article on the wife appeared before an article on the husband). --Elonka 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There is information given here which is potentially useful to the reader who comes across the entry. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note that we have generally considered Irish peers since 1801 and Scottish peers between 1707 and 1958 as automatically notable, despite the fact that, like today's hereditary peers, they only served in the house of lords if they were elected as representative peers. john k 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I feel that peeresses are fair game, especially when combined with two peeress cousins and a spot in the line of succession to the British throne, as well as descent from the Russian Imperial Family. There are a few very notable connections with this lady. Charles 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. as per Charles (above). The page may be of interest to someone. JRawle (Talk) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A peeress is certainly more noteworthy than a minor cadet member of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, e.g. Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who survived an AfD last month. Noel S McFerran 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn, yes someone may be interested in her, but there's no indication that she's done anything but marry and procreate -- something that several billion other people have done -- the fact that she is distantly related to some famous people does not make her notable. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep., I think. I think any peer or peeress has generally been considered to qualify as a priori notable. I'm not sure that being descended from the Electress Sophia makes you notable on its own, although there really aren't that many such people - a few thousand, perhaps? john k 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A peeress is notable. Just because nobles and geneology is not interesting to some people does not mean other people are interested in it as well. Morhange 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into an as-yet-uncreated article about her husband. Ardric47 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As a Ramsay, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for an individual page; therefore, I suggest retaining the information currently provided and merging that information into an appropriate article. Adraeus 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, at all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - hey she's even closer to the throne - 660th now :-) If her title had been in her own right that would be fine but she has it as the wife of a peer and nothing seemingly achieved to make her notable in her own right. BlueValour 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - she seems to present at Clan events such as Games etc. and further research might find her as a patron of an organisation(?) Craigy (talk) 21:19, 20 August 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.
