Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baroness of Douglas


 * 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. At any rate not delete; there is an inconclusive discussion about a possible rename or merger, but with all the knowledgeable people here I think that can be further worked out on the talk page if necessary.  Sandstein  06:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Baroness of Douglas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable, possibly a hoax.

This article in unreferenced, and I can find no external evidence of its existence. There is nothing on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives). A general Google search throws up only unreliable sources such as user-generated genealogy sites.

Unless there is evidence in reliable sources that this title existed, then it fails WP:GNG and we should not have an article about it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

−
 * snowball keep. I agree sourcing in the article is weak now, but several citations can be found here: - for example: A TOUR THROUGH THE ISLE OF MAN, TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED A Review of the Manks History; BY DAVID ROBERTSON, ESQ. I also note that it is possible this deletion is motivated by a politically-charged debated happening around ; I suggest other editors take that into account before considering deletion. Now 2 separate sources found with 2 minutes of searching. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of pointy editing going on in relation to the, so I am scrutinising it all carefully. This article had been unreferenced since its creation, and the checks above revealed no sources; I checked it when its existence was used by Karl as evidence in pursuit of his British Isles campaign.
 * The one reference cited by KB is a passing mention, and falls well short of the requirements of WP:GNG. I question its reliability as a historical source; it sounds like a travel book rather than a work of scholarship.
 * I suggest that Karl actually reads WP:SNOW before changing his !vote to a "snowball keep" ... and that editors consider the article against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
 * Yeah, it's snowing here. Also, I suggest you read what WP:POINT says. Nominating and article for deletion without doing a few basic searches because its very existence threatens a category theory you have is the very definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. There are now 3 separate books that reference the Baroness. I suggest a speedy, snowy close. --KarlB (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Karl, if you read the nomination, you would see that the searches I did (per WP:BEFORE) are linked above.
 * And you clearly still haven't read WP:SNOW. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Isle of Man and WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage have been notified. I have also notified all 3 other contributors to the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article now has three references:
 * The first of those refs is to a passing mention in a travel book on Google Book, which fails WP:GNG.
 * I am surprised by the rapidity of KarlB's unearthing of mentions in the other books, and would like to verify what they say. Karl, please can you explain where you read the books? In print, or somewhere online that you can link to? Either way in assessing notability, we need to see exactly what those books say about the topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first of those refs is to a passing mention in a travel book on Google Book, which fails WP:GNG.
 * I am surprised by the rapidity of KarlB's unearthing of mentions in the other books, and would like to verify what they say. Karl, please can you explain where you read the books? In print, or somewhere online that you can link to? Either way in assessing notability, we need to see exactly what those books say about the topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by the rapidity of KarlB's unearthing of mentions in the other books, and would like to verify what they say. Karl, please can you explain where you read the books? In print, or somewhere online that you can link to? Either way in assessing notability, we need to see exactly what those books say about the topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::::Allow me to then provide some suggestions on searches. A simple google search of a single string is, for a topic like this one, generally not sufficient. Given that you have 200,000 edits, I know you are capable of great contributions to the wiki, and I'm sure you are aware that a search of google news for a Baroness that went extinct many years ago is a rather silly prospect. I suggest you do the honorable thing, and withdraw this nomination, especially given the sources already found.--KarlB (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment now 4 refs. The Prioress of Douglas clearly exists, the prioress of douglas existed, and four separate books found in the space of 10 minutes mention the baroness. I have read WP:SNOW, and it says there isn't a need to run a full process if there isn't a snowball's chance in hell. I think given the copious references already provided, your initial claims of hoax are found wanting.--KarlB (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete – I'm not really convinced either way. The article is almost certainly not a hoax; but I've seen nothing to convince me that it is notable. If the result of four independent sources is only the amount of text in the article, I suspect it is non-notable.  Harrias  talk 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment Thanks. I would just note that this is about the title of Baroness. Per WP:POLITICIAN, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed notable. The Baroness held court, and could try people by a jury of their own tenants. Several of the sources state that she was an important political figure. Given that this title was finished in the late 16th century, one could be forgiven if thousands of sources were not forthcoming, but I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your vote, given that we've established the existence of this title and the sources attest that it was indeed a leadership title. Here is a quote from yet another source: "The Bishop and some other these barons, before their suppression, held courts of jurisdiction within their own boundaries, with many feudal privileges almost equal to those of the sovereign" . More text could be added to the article, and I'm sure it will be in time as other editors who have access to real live books (not just google search) find more.
 * A few more quotes for convenience from various sources:
 * "In which court the Bishop of Mann was called to come to doe his Faith and Fealtie unto the Lord, as the Law asketh, and to shew by what Claime he houldeth his Lands and tenements within the Lordship of Mann, the which came and did his Faith and Fealtie to the Lord. The Abbott also of Rushe and the Priors of Douglas, were called to doe their Feltie, and to shew their Claimes of their Houldings, Lands and Tenements, within the Lordship of Man; the which came and did their Feltie to the Lord."
 * "The Manx barons were eight in number: (1) Bishop of Sodor and Man; (2) Abbot of Rushen; (3) Prior of Douglas; (4) Baron of St. Trinian's; (5) Abbot of Furness; (6) Abbot of Bangor and Saball; (7) Prior of St. Bede;s, in Copeland; and (8)) Prior of Whithorne or the candida Casa in Galloway. The Prioros of Beemakin and Arbory are never mentioned in the list of barons; but the priorress of teh Nunnery of St. Bridget is said to have had baronial rights. All of these are ecclesiastical barons, excep Saball and St. Trinian;s, and an evidence of the ambition and high standing in society of the church in the middle ages. All, doubtless, held grants of land in the Island though now lost sight of; but many of them having been forfeited reverted to the sovereign and constitute the abbey lands of the present day."
 * "The prioress of Douglas was anciently a baroness of the isle. Her person was sacred; her authority dignified; her revenue extensive; and her privileges important. She held courts in her own name; and from the Lord's court she frequently demanded her vassals, and tried them by a jury of her own tenants. When such was her temporal authority, it may be presumed of her spiritual jurisdiction that "here perchance a tyrant-abbeys reigned who rul'd the cloister with an iron-rod" --KarlB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Nunnery, Douglas. The online sources verify the existence of the title, but I'm not convinced as to its notability. I don't think WP:POLITICIAN applies, since the article's about a title, not a person. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you mind sharing what led you to be unconvinced about notability? I have tried to provide multiple references in multiple independent sources, plus confirmation that she was basically second in command to the sovereign. Again, given that there isn't as much "Isle of Man" history as there is for the UK, I still don't see how this title is any less notable than some of the hundreds of UK Barons we have. --KarlB (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the print sources, but I don't think the contents of the online sources amount to "significant coverage". There isn't enough information available for the article to expand beyond a stub, and this information would sit comfortably in The Nunnery, Douglas. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand your POV. however, I do ask that you consider that in this case, this is a noble title, that we know exists, in a country that has a 1000 year history. But, it's a small country, so there isn't much written online about it - you may have to go to the Isle of Man itself to dig up original paper records. Thus, the fact that there isn't a preponderance of online sources should not be surprising, and there isn't a requirement in wikipedia for sources to be online. Most contemporary sources mentioning the baroness would be from ~13-15th centuries. But just in case it might change your mind, here are a few others for your consideration:Link to a plate showing her coat of arms; another mention in a history book; Legal records from 1417/1418 - two mentions of the prioress another book ref I'd ask again that you kindly reconsider your vote; the subject is clearly notable, being referenced in at least a dozen different history books, all found within a day, and the title was clearly an important post in the time, as attested. We keep NFL players who have played one game, so I'm a bit confused we're having a discussion about a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources. --KarlB (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Karl, your post above includes 4 refs (Link to a plate showing her coat of arms;, Legal records from 1417/1418, ), but none of them mentions the word "baroness". Why do you claim that those refs are evidence of the notability of the title "Baroness of Douglas"????? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The prioress was a baroness. Different sources use different names to refer to her. --KarlB (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And per the overwhelming evidence of the sources so far, she was known as the "Prioress of Douglas". Your claim above about "a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources" is not applicable to the title "Baroness of Douglas". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, if you'd like to withdraw this AfD and rename the article, that is something worth considering, with a redirect. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The evidence so far clearly does not support the existence of a standalone article under the title "Baroness of Douglas". One possible solution is a rename, but a better solution would be a merger to The Nunnery, Douglas, and I would prefer that decision to be made here than to have to reopen another discussion. At this point, merger is probably a better solution than deletion, so that the disjointed snippets you have assembled into the page can provide some pointers for other editors (per WP:PRESERVE).
 * In any case, the fact that other editors have now !voted to merge or delete means that it is no longer open to me to withdraw the nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAICS, the situation here is the Isle of Man had a structure similar to that pertaining in much of the rest of Europe, where religious orders owned a lot of land and other property, and had extensive civil powers. It seems that there were several such religious houses in the Isle of Man, in which the head of the abbey/priory/monastery had significant civil powers, which led to them being described in some sources as "barons" or "baronesses". However, that terminology is not as straightforward as it appears. In contemporary usage in England, a Baron is the junior rank of hereditary peerage, a person whose title entitled them until the 1999 Act to a seat in the House of Lords ... but as set out at Baron, the term had a much wider usage in the middle ages, when it extended far beyond those who would now be considered "nobility". So, a lot of caution is needed when looking looking at the usage in medieval societies ... particularly when the term is linked to religious office. In the contemporary United Kingdom, the Lords Spiritual (i.e. CoE Bishops) continue to hold ex officio seats in the House of Lords, but there is disagreement as to whether they are members of the peerage (see Lords Spiritual) ... and they are certainly not Barons. In this case, the situation appears to be that there were a number of religious houses, whose leaders held some civil power. However, evidence presented here for the use of the titles "Baron" and "Baroness" is very weak; AFAICS amidst the shoal of red herrings, it consists solely of a mention in a travelogue and a unattributed website. The quality of debate has been undermined by one editor postings 4 refs as "evidence" of the notability of tithe title, but none of them even mentions the word "baroness". I do not yet see any clear evidence about the nature of this title of baroness: was it an ex officio role of the Prioress? Was either position hereditary (whether through primogeniture or otherwise)? Was it a courtesy title? Even the very specific but non-RS http://www.manxmanorialroll.com/quests/baronies.html is not clear about this. Most of the references that I can see clearly support the existence of a WP:GNG notable "Prioress of Douglas"; but they make far fewer refs to the title "Baroness of Douglas", and are unclear about the nature of that title. So, I suggest that if there is to be a standalone article on this office, it should be titled per WP:COMMONNAME as "Prioress of Douglas". However, the material collected so far in relation to the prioress is patchy and brief, so I suggest that a better solution is DoctorKubla's suggestion of a merger to The Nunnery, Douglas. That way, the material on the priory and its leaders can be kept together on one page, while will still be quite short. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly not a hoax as the matter is documented in sources such as The History of the House of Stanley; A Complete History of the Isle of Man; An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man. Warden (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on debate so far, suggesting rename or preferably merger. I nominated this article for deletion, because I found no evidence to support its existence. Some references have now been produced (though not all in reliable sources), but I not persuaded that they solve the original problem. On the contrary they point to a much more complex picture, which still leads me to think that there should not be a standalone article under the current title. Please bear with me while I explain.
 * Well that's a whole lot of WP:SYN and WP:OR. Multiple, independent sources call these people barons. What kind of barons they are is really up to the sources to determine, and until someone finds such sources, we should just keep calling them 'Barons', and not make up hypotheses... also, since you seem to be having so much trouble finding sources, allow me to provide you a link: . --KarlB (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another source for the Baronies of the Isle of Man. --KarlB (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense: I offered no SYN, and no OR.
 * I did not "make up hypotheses". I asked questions, which the sources so far do not come anywhere answering. But you are clearly not interested in a genuine discussion, so I will leave you to google away. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking up WP:OR. You are claiming that this baroness, who is attested to be a baroness in multiple independent sources (which for some reason you continue to not be able to find!), is perhaps not really a baroness at all. That is WP:OR. If you find an article somewhere that says "The Baroness of douglas was just a pretend title, she wasn't really nobility, etc" then I can see your point. Until then, it's just idle speculation on your part. From everything I've read, it appears it was ex-officio. You ask a lot of questions about the nature of this baroness, but none of them are that relevant - because the sources we have say the prioress was baroness. Until other sources come to light challenging that, let's just move on. --KarlB (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read what I actually wrote. I did not say that she "is perhaps not really a baroness at all". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Your arguments are so weak and tendentious I just don't know what to do. This is what you said:

"described in some sources as "barons" or "baronesses". However, that terminology is not as straightforward as it appears"; "the term had a much wider usage in the middle ages, when it extended far beyond those who would now be considered "nobility".;"So, a lot of caution is needed when looking looking at the usage in medieval societies ... particularly when the term is linked to religious office.";"However, evidence presented here for the use of the titles "Baron" and "Baroness" is very weak"


 * So yes, when you add all that up, that suggests to me that you are casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness. Now, there may be questions as to what *kind* of baroness she was - was she a feudal baroness, or was it a hereditary title, or was it given to her by St. Patrick himself - but that is a very different question of the question for this AfD - which is, did the title exist. Your casting of doubt on this is mostly based on what seems to be extremely sloppy research or inability to use google books search - for example, you initially nominated this as a hoax. Then you say above that you can only find two sources that reference the baroness. Please go back to google and check again. I've given at least 5 separate books.--KarlB (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some points
If Karl wants to participate in this discussion, it he should discuss the AFD issue, and stop trying to make creative interpretations of my words. For example, I am not "casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness"; I am questioning the nature of the title. Accusing me of "inability to use google books search" is pure bitchiness: the fact is that Google Books does not record use of the phrase "Baroness of Douglas", which is the current title of the article. Quit the sniping.

The question for AfD is not "did the title exist"; plenty of things which exist do not meet the inclusion policies (see WP:N). The question for AFD is whether the title is notable enough to have a standalone article. There are secondary questions as to the name of any standalone page, and whether the topic is best covered by a standalone page or as part of another article.

I will summarise what I have seen so far.


 * 1) There are no hits for "Baroness of Douglas" on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives).
 * 2) The title "Prioress of Douglas" gets 72 hits on Google Books, and 14 hits on Google Scholar
 * 3) Per the above, the most widely-used title in reliable sources for the holder of this office is "Prioress of Douglas". Per Wikipedia's naming policy at WP:COMMONNAME, that is the title which should be used if there is to be a standalone article on her.
 * 4) There is already an article on The Nunnery, Douglas. It is not a long article, and neither is this one. That is why I support DoctorKubla's suggestion above that the two be merged.
 * 5) Whether the prioress is covered in a standalone article or as part of a merged article, the sources so far say very little about the nature of the title "baron(ess)" in the Isle of Man. The title of Prior for a monastic superior (whether lay or religious) covers a range of meanings, and it is unclear from the sources so far which of the meanings applies here.
 * 6) The use of the title "baroness" for a prior with temporal powers is very different from the meanings used in the Norman system which survives in England (see baron). Rather than assuming that this title demotes noble status, please reserve judgement until more sources are available. That is why I have expressed concern about adding these titles to List of baronies in the Peerages of the British Isles, because so far there are no sources which say that they should be regarded as part of the Peerage. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but we need scholarly sources to clarify this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Prioress of Douglas, per BHG above, until more sources come to light. Maintain redirect from Baroness. Keep: There are enough sources to support that she was a baroness, of which type still TBD. --KarlB (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As the original author of the entry, I would rather that this information be listed as a separate section on the history of the priory than be renamed, which would change the emphasis of the entry completely. I would hate to see it deleted entirely, as the site's current occupant gives it some note in the world currently.
 * Merge rather than rename, but prefer to keep

My intent in creating the entry was simply to list what the sources I had seen indicated was a civil title, distinct from the religious office the prioress occupied. This was significant to me as the holder would always be a woman, which was not all that common, even on the European continent.

It is also important to remember that the prioress would not have the civil powers she did under canon law. While an abbess (or abbot) might have such powers on the continent, prioresses (and priors), who hold a lesser title within the Church, normally did not have the standing either in the Church or in society to have such powers and be considered a civil Lady or Lord. Thus the secular powers granted this prioress are worth enumerating separately, as out of course with the normal hierarchical system in Europe as a whole.

Since this seems not to have been the situation on the Isle of Man, that is a fact worthy of note in European ecclesiastical and secular history, as seen from an outsider.Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually that is a convincing argument - that this was a separate title distinct from the religious office. I've changed my vote back to keep accordingly. --KarlB (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Daniel, it is a pity that when you created the article, you did not list the sources which you had seen. That would have helped clarify the provenance of the article, and saved me from wondering if it was a hoax.
 * All of the sources which I have seen in the course of this discussion indicate that the two titles ("Prioress" and "Baroness") were always combined in the same person. There is therefore no need for two articles on the same topic.
 * AFAICS, the title of "Baroness" was an ex-officio title of the person selected as Prioress. Please correct me if you have sources which point the other way, but many of the refs explicitly using a phrasing such as "The Prioress of Douglas was also a Baroness".
 * I agree that the civil powers are worth enumerating, and I agree with your point that they are significant as an exception to the European norm. However, I can still see no reason to continue to have separate articles on the priory and its head. Both are currently short, and unless a significant quantity of new material is added, the reader is better served by keeping all this related material on one page -- i.e. merging it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on the basis on improvements to the article are enough per WP:HEY, mostly the added sources per WP:RS. However, WP:SNOW is only invoked when there is an exptremely clear case one way or the other, based on a large number of "!votes" either to keep or to deleted, or when common sense must prevail.  This is actually quite a marginal case per WP:BARE, and common sense does not dictate any one outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that more refs have been add to support the existence of the title, I quite agree that the material should not be deleted.  However, I would be interested in your thoughts on a) my assessment that the "Prioress of Douglas" is the most widely-used title of this person in the sources, b) since, as you note, WP:BARE applies, wouldn't it better to combine this with the article on the priory itself? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The nunnery has been rebuilt in the 19th century. I don't see why this title, which represented significant ecclesiastical and temporal powers as attested by multiple independent references, should be merged to an article about a 19th century building. Shortness of an article is not a reason to merge; as noted, most good sources would likely be 15th/14th centuries, so more time is simply needed. --KarlB (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite its current title, The Nunnery, Douglas is not actually an article about a 19th century building. The rebuilt building does not appear to be particularly notable, and its significance derives solely from the fact that it is the site of the former Priory of Douglas, and the article on The Nunnery is mostly about the former priory. It should be retitled Priory of Douglas. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Girl, I stand humbly chastened for my error. As regards the fate of the article, I am not entirely opposed to merging it. I would question, however, your comment that the entry on the site is about the current building. The opening line identifies the topic of the entry as a modern estate, and then proceeds to give its historical background. I feel that the estate's current occupancy by an international center of education also makes it significant. So remaining in the way you suggest, while actually preferable on a personal basis (here the term "nunnery" is considered derogatory), would not reflect the actual name of the estate.


 * As regards the question of priority of title, I consider the title of Baroness far more unique than that of prioress as a monastic superior, which every priory automatically has, and consequently the secular title seems more noteworthy. In this case, she was the only female on the entire island to hold a secular title of power. While it came ex officio, it was still distinct from her monastic office and unique to Mann, and should be considered separately. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (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.