Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie


 * 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 to David Ogilvy, 12th Earl of Airlie. There was consensus that the subject lacked individual notability, and a general agreement that there should be a redirect. Truthfully, I'm not certain that there was consensus to redirect to the target I've chosen, and as always editors should feel free to change the redirect target as they would for any other editor. I have personal sympathy for DGG's view here, but it doesn't have support in this debate. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandra Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No indications of own WP:Notability. No WP:Reliable sources (all what I've found was merely the mention of her name, mostly in connection with her family). No indications that this article could ever be more than pure genealogy. Phoe  talk   18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There needs to be some indication of notability of the subject in their own right. There are, as expected, mentions of the subject in the context of being the wife of and mother of notable people, but nothing to indicate notabilty in the subject's own right. Tried looking under various versions of the name, including the subject's maiden name without success. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to the father Thomas Coke, 3rd Earl of Leicester; no indication of WP:N on her own. JJL (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Her father appears to be no more notable, unless military service (with no apparent distinction) is more notable than the activities of a woman in the normal course of family life. Perhaps, being the first-born, she would be notable like her younger brother (Thomas William Coke, 4th Earl of Leicester) had she been male.Downsize43 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * in the world during the early 20th century, it was, unfortunately, just as you said. . military service-- as a nobleman in a position of a senior officer--was certainly considered much more notable than almost anything else a person could do.  DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't necessarily disagree, but he's not up for AfD so it seems a reasonable rd. JJL (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Her father sat in the House of Lords and was additionally to his military career at least a Lord Lieutenant, so his notability is rather established. By the way I would reckon a possible redirection to her husband David Ogilvy, 12th Earl of Airlie more sensible. Phoe   talk   09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  Despite the general social role of women in the period, women in the 20th century upper aristocracy --and the daughter of an earl most definitely is in the upper aristocracy --played a very significant role in public life. It will be certain that more material would be available, primarily in print.. Not anywhere near as much  as much as for her father or her husband, but enough. In any case, as a a matter of policy, it is high time that we stop entering women as subarticles under the husabands names. Even if the articles must be shorter, they should be separate.  DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment "women in the 20th century upper aristocracy .... played a very significant role in public life" I would have to disagree with you there. Some women of the aristocratic classes did play a significant and noteworthy role in public life, whether in the political, artistic or other fields; however, many, if not most, didn't. For every Mitford sister, there were hundreds of women in that social stratum that had no discernible (and recorded) effect on public life whatsoever. In fairness, the same could be said for as many of the male members of the class or people of any gender in any social class.
 * While an "expected notabilty" argument is valid in the case of someone whose title (or rank, awards or whatever) would lead to a reasonable expectation of reliable sources being available in print, is that actually the case here? The titles are courtesy titles. There is a remarkable lack of sources found, barring (as mentioned) the usual namechecks in genealogical listings, which would suggest that the subject might indeed not pass general notabilty criteria. There would need to be some assertion of notabilty and for lack of a better word, importance in the grand scheme of things, which the article hasn't asserted in its 5 years of existence. There might be reliably sourced coverage, but there is no reason in this case to automatically assume it exists; there exists a strong possibility that coverage may only extend to minor news coverage of attendance at social events and the opening of village fetes.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment concur with Flowerpotman. She still has to meet WP:N individually, and it's far from clear to me that most women in her social class would meet that standard. Those individuals who are British title holders in their own right are different from those who gain a courtesy title from a father or husband. As to entering her under the husband's name, her listed and highest title comes from the husband. Since that (courtesy) title and corresponding social status derives from his status as a peer, a rd there makes sense to me. JJL (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to husband or father due to lack of individual notability, all content can be covered in those articles. - dwc lr (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (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.