Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill


 * 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 Merge to Rivers of Blood speech. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z 

Druscilla Cotterill

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Inspiration for one of the most important political speeches in Britain, and which is considered highly notable today; what her life story actually was is highly important in checking whether Powell was reporting accurately, given that he was challenged for distortion. It's not appropriate to include this in Enoch Powell's article, more appropriate to have a separate article. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with and redirect to Rivers of Blood speech. The person is not particularly notable in her own right, but there should be a section on the page about the speech. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Rivers of Blood speech per Grand Slam. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that Rivers of Blood speech should be merged and redirected to Enoch Powell while Druscilla Cotterill remained a separate article. The identification of Cotterill is not unchallenged (although I think it's pretty clear that it was her). However, the Rivers of Blood speech is pretty much inseperable from Enoch Powell's reputation. Incidentally, we don't have anything from the speech on Wikiquote, where I'm an admin. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has multiple, non-trivial, media articles about her, so (just) passes Notability. They are recent media reports, so likely to increase in number. Rwendland 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the articles only exist because of Enoch Powell. She has no notability of her own. And the reason for the recent media reports is the information that she was source for the Rivers of Blood speech only emerged recently. Having been covered by the media once, she lacks notability, and she appears to have lived a pretty unremarkable life, and there's little chance of any future information being published about her. It's only that she was discovered (retrospectively) recently that there's any sourcing. If this had been found out 40 years ago she would be a footnote in a history book, just because there's online sources doesn't make her notable. Nssdfdsfds 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cherie Blair is only notable because she is married to Tony Blair (she would not be notable as a barrister), but she has a separate article because she has a life of her own, and because it would unbalance Tony Blair's article to include excessive detail about her. In any case, footnotes in history books often make the basis for very good articles. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability defines notability in the sense of "attracting notice" not "importance". There was a radio program about her, and a newspaper article, so she has attracted some notice - I'd agree two media pieces is very marginal; though that may increase. My view is that Wikipedia is not paper, so accepting marginal articles has little downside providing there is a verifiable neutral-ish source, so if an editor chooses to write a resonable NPOV article on the margins of notability I'm happy to accept it, especially if it keeps the content out of a more mainstream article. Rwendland 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect She herself is not notable, the speech itself is. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2007 (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.