Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Gilham Page (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to William Nelson Page. Clear consensus to not keep. Less clear if there's any real consensus between delete, merge, or redirect. Going with redirect as a middle ground that I don't think anybody would object to. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Emma Gilham Page
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BIO, this article does not establish notability of the subject, and sources used seem to point to the subjects spouse. The criteria given for the previous AfD conclusion of no consensus - the naming of places - again refers only to the husband. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with William Nelson Page, which already has a sub-section relating to this subject. As nominator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Upon review of the comments by RebeccaGreen and Icewhiz I have changed my preference to Delete / Redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources used do point to the spouse, of course, but I would argue there is still enough coverage within those books to show GNG. A book doesn't need to be 'about' that specific topic to still be considered significant. One might not argue her life is relevant from a business standpoint, but from a social and general historical standpoint, of course it is. JamieWhat (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Per below, most if not all sources note her as Mrs William Nelson Page which, although social convention of the era, appears to indicate that there was no notability of her own accord. Most social reporting would expect that the wife of a local dignitary would be the hostess of functions or co supporter of various local projects. There does not appear to be any mention of any activity outside that of a dutiful spouse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A small point - it was indeed the social convention of the time to refer to married women by their husbands' names, and that would not affect their notability if they did notable things. I consider this woman non-notable because no notable activities or achievements were reported (as you say, nothing beyond what was expected of any woman of her social standing), not because of the name used for her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A small point, well made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't find any further information about her in Newspapers.com, EBSCO, JSTOR, etc. There are many short mentions in the social pages in digitised newspapers, which can be useful sources of information about civic activities and careers. In this case, they report only that Mrs. William Nelson Page hosted or was hosted at teas, bridge parties, whist parties (she gifted some gold enamelled pins), eggnog parties, dinners, and as house guests, etc. In 1891, if it's the same Mrs. William N. Page, she was one of 14 members of the Woman's Committee of the World's Fair Auxiliary Committee on Charities - but there were 12 of these women's committees which all had that many members or more - and she was not a chair, just a member, and may not even have been the same person.
 * I am not !voting Merge, as I don't see any information here which is not already in the articles about her father and/or her husband, and, while redirects are cheap, it does not seem to me that anyone outside her family would know of her as Emma Gilham Page. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No harm in the redirect (on a 14 year old article) + Emma Hayden Page redirects here and should redirect to the husband. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - not seeing the WP:NOTE for this .. and per nom — Ched : ?    —  15:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect (I agree with RebeccaGreen - not much salvageable here) to William Nelson Page. A WP:NOTINHERITED situation vs. her father and husband - most of the article describes her relatives, and she does not seem to be discussed at any significant length in sources I see. Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand the desire to create more broad and inclusive history, and to move to more social history positions, such as noting how many servants rich people had. There are lots of issues with the coverage and inclusion in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is also not a forum to right great wrongs. If someone feels that Emma Gilham Page is a truly worthwhile focus for study they are free to seek to get research on her published in reliable sources, and once that is done multiple times we can follow with an article on her, until then there is no justification for a stand alone article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Material unsupported by reliable sources is deleted and not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia, so this takes care of any Merge proposal. A Redirect to the extant article on William Nelson Page would not be out of place, of course, since there'll always be somone cherchant la femme. -The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with sadness because the article is done with some care. But I just don't see a GNG case here. The article doesn't really even claim notability. Haukur (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2019 (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.