Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Jane Caulfield


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Jane Caulfeild

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A simple genealogical entry, with no indication of historical noteworthiness nor impact. A prod tag was added, but was removed on grounds that 'having an entry in a paper encyclopedia is a strong indication of notability'. That particular encyclopaedia is a 1906 Jewish encyclopaedia, and its entry seems to stem solely from the subject being a Jewish convert, as there is nothing else that indicates even the slightest hint of notability. CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into her husband's page, James Caulfeild, 3rd Earl of Charlemont. That seems to be where most of her "notability" lies. It would also seem her surname's misspelt. Bazj (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If she's notable enough for a paper encyclopedia, even a specialized one, then she's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed that Wikipedia was a source-based encyclopaedia, not a faith-based one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And a nomination for deletion that itself cites one source covering this person is somewhat self-defeating, as a consequence. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The paper encyclopedias are sources sufficient for the purpose.  The JE and the CE, old and new, are among the major encyclopedias that confer notability. The principle is that we are a superset of other major selective encyclopedias. Additionally, as what she did was extremely unsuaul for someone in her position, there probably are additional sources., DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google throws up plenty of links under the correct spelling of CAULFEILD, though mostly due to her place in the peerage through her husband. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Books appears to show coverage for this particular woman as notable for her conversion to Judaism. I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find someone's dissertation on her. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is coverage in the 1908 Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, apparently. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability clearly established by individual entries in paper encyclopedias. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the faith-based assertions that she MUST be famous for something because she's in an old encyclopaedia, does anyone have any ACTUAL evidence of this fame--or, in fact, what this fame is supposed to be about? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only you have mentioned fame, which is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion at Wikipedia. Other people have been talking about notability which is not the same thing as fame at all.  Only you have mentioned faith, too.  Everyone else is talking about sources.  John Carter's rationale, specifically, is clearly based upon sources from what xe has actually written.  Xe makes no mention at all of faith of any kind.  Characterizing it as such is a gross misrepresentation. Why, if you think that this is a source-based encyclopaedia, are you trying to divert a discussion that is directly addressing sources away from doing so?  Multiple independent sources exist (Boase's Modern English Biography has an entry.  And she's discussed as a case in Roth's Personalities and events in Jewish history‎.).  And it is solely the depths and provenances of the sources that exist that determine notability, not our personal subjective judgements of importance, not estimations of "fame" or "impact" that we have no business even trying to make (because they have no bearing upon what readers actually come to an encyclopaedia for), and not our personal likes and dislikes.  Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, since she was important enough for the 1901 jewpedia -- Y not? 20:12, 10 April 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.