Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Wilberforce


 * 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 keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Wilberforce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited. Per a WP:BEFORE search, there is nothing covering the subject in depth as anything other than being married to someone notable. No accomplishments, awards, etc. The article states she married and had children; most everyone could say the same. Kbabej (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to William Wilberforce. Mccapra (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge with William Wilberforce. This article is just about her personal life and relatives. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that a person is portrayed in a semi-historical way in a film does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not about the article, per WP:CONTN. Quite a bit has been written about her (enough to meet WP:GNG), but whether a separate article is warranted, or a section in the article about her husband is sufficient, I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  PA TH   SL OP U  06:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There is extensive and detailed information about the subject in works such as The Parting of Friends and Wilberforce: Family and Friends. The subject therefore passes WP:BASIC and no particular accomplishment or achievement is required.  The sources indicate that she was prone to anxiety and so inclined to worry and fuss.  This caused some people to dislike her but so it goes.  See WP:ZEAL. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as same reason per above. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has been a considerable amount written about Barbara Wilberforce, as Andrew Davidson shows. To assess notability we do not enquire why authors have chosen to write what they did, we simply look for independent, reliable, substantial sources and in this case we do indeed find them. We do not make our own subjective assessments about whether someone is accomplished. WP:INHERITED deals with the situation where there has been very little written about a person who has a notable relative – that does not apply here. She outlived her husband and there are sources referring to her particularly strict evangelical views in later life. There is no claim (I hope) that she is notable solely because she was characterised in a film. Editorially it may make sense to merge with the article about William Wilberforce but I think this should only be after talk page discussion, not by AFD mandate. The latter article is a featured article and the editors and FAC assessors may have had good reason to want to limit the amount written about Barbara for stylistic or other reasons. This article about Barbara was created before the article on William was featured so the latter may well have been relying on the links it had then to this subject. A discussion here should not risk disadvantaging a featured article. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I was, at first look, going to argue that the references about Barbara only talked about her in terms of her relationship to her husband. However, that first source of Andrew's actually does have a chapter extensively on Barbara herself.  I think that significant coverage, along with the various minor mentions in the other sources, is enough to meet the GNG, if just barely.  I do think there is an argument to be had that it might be more fitting for a merger, but as Thincat said, that would probably be best addressed in a separate discussion.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said above, there is enough to meet WP:GNG, and I also had in mind the argument that Thincat made about the FA status of the article about her husband. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2019 (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.