Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily, Lady Peel


 * 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   no consensus. Flowerparty ☀ 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Emily, Lady Peel

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

Does not establish notability. Patchy1 Talk To Me! 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I cannot find any other references or sources to add to the article, and the only one given is in a foreign language. I can't see anything to establish notability-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge to the article about her husband. No Reliable sources and no indications of own Notability locatable. The possible fact that a rose was named after her justifies not an independent article.  Phoe  talk  18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep In principle, an article should present information about a person if there is any likelyhood that somebody would find that person mentioned somewhere and would require additional information about that person. In this case, there is a rose which has been named after her. It may not be important, but persons who are interested in gardening might want to know who the person was after who that rose was named. Obviously people who are not interested in roses would tend to ignore the information and would consider it irrelevant. This is valid for any other subject. Wikipedia should be the place where such information is presented and make such information available. The fact that the reference is in a foreign language is not a criterion. The site is a serious one which has important information about rosarians. Her husband has nothing to do with rose growing. Afil (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I only mentioned the foreign language because looking at it, I have no clue what it is talking about. Is it talking about a flower(Which is what is on the page) or this person.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As Gordon has already said the matter is the person's notability and in this aspect the existence of the rose is irrelevant. Note also that the website or rather homepage is self-published and fails therefore as mentioned before Reliable sources. If by the way an article about this specific rose would exist at Wikipedia, then the information about the rose's eponym could be merged into it.  Phoe  talk  19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She apparently is in most of the memoirs of the period,  ( about 1/4 the 500 items in a G Books search are more than trivial mentions, e.g.       The daughter-in-law of the PM could hardly avoid it. DGG (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 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.