Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alianore de Lovayne


 * 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. I have to discount Jeanne Boleyn's arguments in the vein of "I am seeking to remedy [the lack of coverage of such women in scholarship] by pushing for fuller coverage of the biographies of women such as Alianore", because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advancing an agenda. Instead, WP:DGFA instructs me to weigh the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, such as WP:BIO. Jeanne Boleyn, as well as the other people expressing "keep" opinions, do not address the coverage requirements of that guideline, or the article's failure to meet them. Accordingly, I have to give these opinions less weight. (As a personal aside: If there is anything of substance to say about the number or social position of suo jure heiresses in medieval England, reliable scholarly sources will have done so, and their research can be covered in an appropriate general article about the topic, which might make Jeanne Boleyn's point better than creating genealogies of random aristocrats that few will ever read.)  Sandstein   19:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alianore de Lovayne

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Individual lacks the slightest claim to notability: has not been the subject of any published study, receiving only incidental notice in a genealogical context. The only WP:RS cited is account of husband's family which names her only to identify to whom the husband, himself non-notable, married. No titles, no nothing. Page is almost entirely a litany of dates of vital events and a listing of all of the people to whom she is related, with dates for them too, but notability is neither inherited nor derived from descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Agricolae (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: For the sake of full disclosure, the page creator and I had disagreed over the content of this page. However, this AfD is not being made out of bad faith, nor is it being proposed as a way to address content. I took a closer look at it and realized that there is no there there. She was born, she married, she died, she was buried. She had children and descendants, and she was the conduit by which the manor of Little Easton (just another English village) passed from her own family (non-notable) to that of her husband (non-notable) and descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created the article on Alianore de Lovayne as she had been an heiress in her own right, which was most unusual for a female in the 14th century. I am hoping to create more articles on such heiresses to highlight the fact that medieval women were not just nameless babymakers, or suffering saints burnt at the stake; but people of property who as such wielded tremendous power over the lives of the tenants who lived on their estates. Alianore de Lovayne may not be known to many editors, but I had hoped to acquaint readers of Wikipedia to the fact that a woman such as Alianore, herself the suo jure owner of many rich manors, and part of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy which was an exclusive circle of powerful, intermarried families, would have exerted much control over the destinies of many individuals. It is imperative that Wikipedia should not remain a bastion of male-dominated historical personages with the females relegated to mere footnote status. I realise after reading some of your contributions, Agricolae, that this AfD is not being made out of bad faith, and is not personal, albeit we had disagreed over the content as you have stated. I maintain my stance that medieval heiresses such as Alianore de Lovayne need to have their own articles so that people may know more about the lives of such women, even if they weren't queens, princesses or tragic saints tied to their wheels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being an heiress in one's own right was not at all uncommon. It happened just about every time a landowner died without a male heir, and the English Pipe Rolls, Close Rolls and Inquisitiones Post Mortem are full of examples.  I could give you estates with six or seven heiresses. It also happened all across the social spectrum, from kings to dirt-farmer tenants. Likewise, the very act of controlling the lives of others is insufficient, or every officer, commissioned and non-com, in every military in the world would also 'need' a page. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to push an agenda, however strongly one feels about it, even if in another context it may seem laudable, such as to educate the less well informed or to retroactively correct an unfortunate historical social inequity.  Setting these 'greater goals' aside, Alianore would be perfectly equivalent to her father, who also was an heir and also had control over people, and also is non-notable and I would also be proposing the deletion of his page if one existed. I am sure there are those who would disagree, I don't think page-worthiness should be inherent in any social class (even though it is almost inevitable in some). One merits (not needs to have) a page only when one is notable, full stop. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By no means was Alianore the only example of a suo jure heiress; indeed there were quite a few. Up until recent times, however, and you will agree with me here, Agricolae, is that history books and especially encyclopedias never bothered to mention these women; they were lucky to receive a footnote! I am seeking to remedy that by pushing for fuller coverage of the biographies of women such as Alianore who lived in the Middle Ages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not the place for advocacy. It is not a place to seek a remedy. Anyhow, this is not a case where a man is getting coverage and an equivalent woman is not. Neither Alianore nor her father merit pages. To give special preference to a person due simply to chromosome makeup is exactly the kind of gender-bias you claim to be fighting. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I confess I was once blind to the realities of patriarchy and oppression, but that changed when I discoved the story of Alianore de Lovayne. The seemingly commonplace events of her life are notable by their very non-notability. Ironically, were it not for this AfD, I would indeed not know about the life of this previously-unsung heroine. Ok, that was satire - but let's allow this article to live. I don't think we are going to be buried under an avalanche of obscure-heiress-cruft on the basis of the precedent. Editors who contribute well-researched factual content like this article should be given some lattitude, even if they are motivated by personal POV, so long as that POV doesn't bias the articles. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only notability asserted in the article is that of some of her descendants, and such notability does not transfer to the article's subject. Fails WP:N for lack of substantive secondary treaments of the woman herself. Deor (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I admit I haven't yet checked out the sources, but on first glance there doesn't seem to be much of a claim of notability here. Notability is not 'inherited' from notable descendants. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for 'righting historical wrongs' like the poor coverage of women in the Middle Ages; that may be the case, but we have to rely on secondary sources, and if they don't cover someone in any detail, then neither can we. Robofish (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We are judging Alianore by 21st standards of notability. In the 14th century a wealthy heiress would have been notable, just as Paris Hilton is notable today, solely on the basis of her inherited wealth. In 200 years time, many people may not even recognise her name. I also feel that Wikipedia needs to improve the coverage of medieval women, which is not the same thing as attempting to right a historical wrong.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A 14th century heiress of a single manor would not have been notable even then, any more than a male holder would have been notable just for having inherited. It doesn't matter though. Wikipedia is a 21st century encyclopedia, and uses a very simple criterion for determining noteworthiness. What coverage has the subject received in secondary sources?  Is it more than just a passing reference?  The answer is clearly no. None of the cited references say anything substantive about her. She is simply someone's wife, someone's daughter, and someone's mother, and none of them have more than two sentences about her. That, by the standards of Wikipedia, is not notable.  As to what Wikipedia 'needs to improve' attempting to set right a current wrong is no better than a historical one, particularly if the 'improvement' flies in the face of Wikipedia's own standard for inclusion. Agricolae (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep She is not the inheritor of  single manor. Read the article: she is the inheritor of a major group of estates, and the progenitor of an important historical family.  Someone in this position  would be notable today.   DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the sources: that is just the editor's hyperbole. 'Major group of estates' appears nowhere. She was a minor local landholder, but the article has exaggerated her importance. As to being progenitor of an important family, every important family has thousands of ancestors, and the number doubles every generation. They aren't all notable. Someone in this position would be no more notable today. (Who today owns Little Easton?) More importantly, this woman ISN'T notable today, as judged by her lack of coverage in secondary sources. Agricolae (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She inherited many properties in Essex and Suffolk, these are facts not my hyperbole. An heiress of property and wealth would have been notable in the insular world of the 14th century English aristocracy, as is ascertained by the number of sources that I have listed at the bottom of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This claim is just your own POV. The 14th century English gentry was a lot larger and more diverse class than you give credit, and most of your sources (Cawley, Tompsett, thePeerage, Burkes) simply demonstrate that she was born and died, she had parents and children and a husband. I see that the Manning House site says she and her husband united two 'great estates', but someone's personal web page is hardly what would be called a reliable source, particularly when it is the site of an adoptee trying to find glory in her newly discovered ancestry. Prone to exaggeration, such sites represent a somewhat different POV than what one might see is a scholarly study.  It definitely does not fit with the WP:RS standard.  I doubt her holdings were in the top 200 in terms of size.  I suspect your average Pennsylvania dairy farmer would have more acreage than she owned.  An heiress of such small property and wealth was only one of many, and not notable, then or now.  Show me a reliable source that calls her a major heiress. All I see here is someone who is said to deserve a page because of the social class to which she belonged and the fact that her father had no sons.  It really should take more than that, given that there were a hundred thousand equivalent minor landholders all across Europe, none of whom receive any scholarly coverage unless they did something particularly noteworthy, such as rise in rebellion or become the mistress of a king. It is that scholarly coverage that defines notability, not an editors presumptions about what someone in the 14th century would have taken note of. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I marvel that you would compare a 14th century heiress to a modern day Pennsylvania dairy farmer. The two are not comparable at all. In the 14th century the owner of estates meant power and influence that a dairy farmer from Pennslvania just does not command. The English gentry and indeed nobility was a considerably smaller, and much intermarried class, compared to the French or Spanish. One has to realise the population in England was much smaller with an aristocracy mainly descended from the Norman knights brought over by William I, although in point of fact, the Lovaynes originated in Louvain. I repeat, a female suo jure landowner with tenant farmers and serfs under her control would have been notable in the 14th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I marvel that you think the Spanish nobility was larger and less intermarried than the English, given that they mostly came from a very small group of repoblador families that then repeatedly intermarried. All of these claims about the English nobility are just based on your personal say-so and POV, just like the supposed claim of notability of this insignificant member of the gentry, when no published source seems to care that she did anything but produce progeny. Agricolae (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC) While we are at it. let me point out one more thing. She did not exercise the power you claim for her - her guardian would have exercised it before her marriage, and then her husband exercised it jure uxoris after. That was the way it worked. So much for that claim to notability. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It did not always follow that men exercised jure uxoris control over their wives property, besides women almost always managed their husband's estates and defended the castles or manors while they were away at war (which they were a large part of the time during the turbulent Middle Ages). There is the more recent 17th century example of Mary Bankes who defended Corfe Castle for three years against the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. History is full of examples of female regents and de facto rulers, I cannot believe you would downgrade the role of females the way you just did. As for Spain, the kingdoms of Aragon, Castile and Leon were not even united until the 15th century, so you really cannot say that their gentry and nobility were comprised of just a few families. The estates of minors, irregardless of sex, were always placed under the control of a guardian, so why make an example of Alianore?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per DGG -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I strongly urge the closing administrator to review the arguments put forward by both sides. I believe it is clear that notability has not been established and while it is a little sad to see some sourced information that one editor has put effort into compiling get lost, it is necessary. I can see no way in which this person is more notable than any significant landowner or member of a distinct social class. Keeping this article just because Alianore is a woman would be patronising. Srnec (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that I have not reviewed the possibility that some or even all of the material currently in the article may have a place somewhere else in the project. It is possible and any that does could be merged there without loss. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 7 October 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.