Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever


 * 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.  Majorly   (hot!)  16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. While nobility is, I suppose, assertion enough of notability to prevent speedy, I can find absolutely nothing to indicate that this person actually is notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that this person's lineage and spouse are not enough to pass WP:BIO or merit inclusion in Wikipedia. For what it is worth, I was the one that contested the prod. I knda wanted to gauge community feelings here.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; notability isn't venereal, and the sum total of this lady's life seems to be that she was born a minor member of the British aristocracy, married a minor member of the British aristocracy, and had a couple kids. Frankly, I'd be curious as to the grounds upon which the prod was contested.  RGTraynor 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I do not agree with the contention expressed on the guideline for nobility talk page that everyone with a title is inherently notable and that their spouses are as well. However, she is presently the wife of a fairly important politician, so I wold expect she has been written about, so someone might be able to find articles about her activities sufficient to justify an article. The wife of U.S. politician Joe Lieberman, Hadassah Lieberman, has an article, for instance, with only 2 references. Edison 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It would have been contested on the basis of being opposed to long-standing policy. I'm not sure what distinguishes a minor member; even if it were decided that mere UK Barons are not all notable, then do we include the richer? the ones with the longest lineage? the ones that are offshoots of the best known houses? -- those interested can and have debated for generations on this sort of thing, and therefore there is a very good reason for having a firm guideline to follow.  I think I have a very rough understanding of the UK, but no knowledge elsewhere, and each country will be different. (In this particular case, she's from a rich but parvenue house; but it terms of prominence, and historical notability, the Astors are probably notable specifically. Others will disagree, perhaps sharply)   If the guideline is to be challenged, it should be on that talk page. It makes sense to me to keep it--it does not refer to all that many people.  I could understand a decision that if she married into a non-noble family, and her children were not noble, then her children would not get articles of their own.  DGG 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm hunting for the policy you cite, and if I'm missing the obvious I apologize, but I'm afraid I can't find it. Could you please put up a link to it for participants to look at? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusion of every AfD on these topics in last 6 months. Considering the inconclusiveness of discussion on the actual policy pages, this seems to be where policy is made. Of course, there's nothing to stop us from changing direction. DGG 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per DGG above. The UK nobility is small enough that we'll never get 10,000 articles cluttering up the encyclopedia, and (for better or worse) is still of interest to a lot of people. Elected hereditary peers are rare enough (there are only 92 of them) that to be both the daughter of one and married to another is interesting in itself, whilst the Astors are an interesting family. I agree it could be expanded with some details of what she's actually done in her own right, but that's not grounds for deleting it. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per comments above on British nobility. She's an Astor, even if by affinity, and that's enough for me.  23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being part of a notable family doesn't in and of itself make one notable. I'd imagine there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Astors in this world. Do they all get articles? szyslak  (t, c) 09:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Personally, though, I think this issue should be decided by English editors. Those of us in countries without an established nobility probably don't know how inherently notable a hereditary peer is. I'm sure the article can be expanded - she must be patron of lots of things. StAnselm 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Astor family, an article which can easily contain a line or two of information such as parentage for all minor members of the family. This is a widely-accepted solution for the "family notable, member not" dilemma. --Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as for the love of God a baroness, someone with a royal title, is significant and part of a lineage! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Baroness is not a royal title, at least not in the UK. It's a noble title, which is not the same thing. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have kept some nutty one election politicians recently, surely someone who's house was used for the greatest 20th century British poltical scandal is notable? Rgds, - Trident13
 * Comment right, there ought to be no discrimination against major historical figures of past periods. We have, besides minor state politicians, many articles about 20th century heirs and heiresses of no importance whatsoever except their money. This is not an argument that othercrapexists, as I have ben questioning the N of the politicians here, and will soon start asking about the heirs.  Those articles shouldn't exist. This one should. DGG 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG & others. Johnbod 15:08, 12 April 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.