Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Robinson (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 delete. Mr.Z-man 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pauline Robinson
AfDs for this article:
Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO Veritas (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Michael WhiteT·C 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not herself notable, probably not even necessary to redirect as she's an unlikely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete - It would be perhaps more suitable to include some of this information in her husband's article. BWH76 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Marginal Keep - The information here is worth having in the Wikipedia and having it as a separate article means we don't have to worry about keeping the articles on all of her father, her husband, and her daughter in sync with information that pertains to just Pauline. That said, I won't object too much if it is simply merged into other articles. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you explain why it is worth having in Wikipedia? --Michael WhiteT·C 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply It gives details about her that is relevant to obtaining a fuller understanding of those about her. If only one of those people were in and of themselves notable, then given the minor degree of notability that she enjoys on her own (her position in the Garden Club of America), she'd more appropriately belong as a section of the article on that one person. However, she touches upon the lives of three (or four if you count her youngest son, Scott, as well) who definitely are notable enough in their own right to deserve an article. Rather than repeating the relevant info her in three or four articles and having to keep them in sync, creating one article and linking to it from them is better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, yes, she touches on their lives by being related to them, but it's unclear to me what information the article contains that really contributes enough to the understanding of those people to keep it. And besides, aren't you claiming notability is inherited? Should we have articles on everyone who touches upon the lives of notable people? If not, how does the fact that she touches on the lives of more than one notable person change that? I don't think the small difficulty of having to keep information about her synchronized across those articles is a good enough argument, and I think it could even solely be kept in the article about her husband.--Michael WhiteT·C 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Reply It gives details about her that is relevant to obtaining a fuller understanding of those about her. If only one of those people were in and of themselves notable, then given the minor degree of notability that she enjoys on her own (her position in the Garden Club of America), she'd more appropriately belong as a section of the article on that one person. However, she touches upon the lives of three (or four if you count her youngest son, Scott, as well) who definitely are notable enough in their own right to deserve an article. Rather than repeating the relevant info her in three or four articles and having to keep them in sync, creating one article and linking to it from them is better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you explain why it is worth having in Wikipedia? --Michael WhiteT·C 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2008 (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.
