Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Bowes-Lyon
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 redirect. W.marsh 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Violet Bowes-Lyon
The article is a stub and is incapable of expansion DrKiernan 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete - Article has been around for several months with no obvious attemps at expanding it. There are no sources but if she is a queens sister, that could merit some importance. Not enough for a keep nomination though.Chris Kreider 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)- Redirect - Change to redirect per the point made by Metropolitan90.
- Redirect to her father, Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, since all of his children are listed there and substantially all the information in this article appears there too. Since Violet died at the age of 11, there is little chance that this article can ever be expanded. Yes, Violet was the older sister of a queen, but she died almost seven years before Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was born, so she never even met the queen to whom she was closely related. --Metropolitan90 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sister of a queen consort and aunt of a queen regnant. Notable, however young she died. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument is disingenuous because she died thirty years before her family became connected to the Royals DrKiernan 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Further to that, we are arguing for deletion not on the basis of notability but on the basis of it being a stub article which duplicates material elsewhere DrKiernan 07:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- When you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. Uncle G 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- First, the fact she died "thirty years before her family became connected to the Royals" is irrelevant. She was still a sister and aunt to queens. Many people are interested in royal relatives, whether you are or are not. Second, there are no valid grounds for deleting an article just because it's a stub. This is a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. -- Necrothesp 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Further to that, we are arguing for deletion not on the basis of notability but on the basis of it being a stub article which duplicates material elsewhere DrKiernan 07:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument is disingenuous because she died thirty years before her family became connected to the Royals DrKiernan 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
DeleteRedirect. She did not have an independent title, nor was she the heiress apparent to a substantial title. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)DeleteI am somewhat concerned that the current consensus (Uncle G, Met90 and Chris against DrK and Nlu for delete and Necro for keep) is for redirect or merger. Please note that there are no links to this page, accept from the deletion pages.Consequently, a redirect would be self-defeating, as there are no links to redirect! (If you see what I mean.)DrKiernan 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)- However, there may be value in linkless redirects, in that users may still type in the name and then get to the redirected article. I had forgotten about that possibility myself, and I'll change my opinion accordingly. (For example, Emperor Fei of Western Wei, which I had created, has a redirect from Yuan Qin (his personal name) even though right now no article links to Yuan Qin.) --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, naturally, I agree that there is a value in linkless directs, as you've just explained. But is anyone likely to put in 'Violet Bowes-Lyon'? I think not. DrKiernan 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, somebody created an article under that name, and it wasn't misnamed. I don't have a problem if this article gets deleted, but redirects are cheap so fighting this out doesn't seem necessary. --Metropolitan90 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Simple answer, yes! Why shouldn't they? If I read a mention of a Violet Bowes-Lyon I would likely check it on Wikipedia for exactly the reason that her surname was Bowes-Lyon. It's never a good idea to impose your own perceptions on the Wikipedia habits of others. -- Necrothesp 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, naturally, I agree that there is a value in linkless directs, as you've just explained. But is anyone likely to put in 'Violet Bowes-Lyon'? I think not. DrKiernan 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, there may be value in linkless redirects, in that users may still type in the name and then get to the redirected article. I had forgotten about that possibility myself, and I'll change my opinion accordingly. (For example, Emperor Fei of Western Wei, which I had created, has a redirect from Yuan Qin (his personal name) even though right now no article links to Yuan Qin.) --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I'm persuaded that a Redirect is a reasonable course of action. It also means that someone searching for information on her gets the added bonus of the more detailed information on Strathmore's page. DrKiernan 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and then redirect editorially to her father, has no independent notability and can easily be covered in his article. Eluchil404 09:59, 31 October 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.
