Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hon. Frances Brooke


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Windsor Beauties. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hon. Frances Brooke

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems mostly known for being related to other people. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women,  and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom - the 'notability' seems to be inherited through subject's relatives Karnataka (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Windsor Beauties - I have not been able to find any significant coverage apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Her main claim to notability seems to be her Windsor Beauties portrait, so it would be an apt target for redirection. Some minor additional info about her may be added as long as it is within scope there and sourced. ~ UN6892  tc 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: We've got a keep, a redirect, and a delete... relisting for more discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, otherwise redirect to Windsor Beauties per Username6892. I'm not familiar with The Fair Ladies of Hampton Court but it was at least published by a major publisher (Little, Brown & Co.) and gives the appearance of representing fairly thorough and sober research. It devotes five pages to a biography of Brooke, which seems like very substantial coverage to me. And then there's this approximately one-page note in Notes and Queries by William Francis Prideaux, a biographical researcher of some note in his day. Add in the lesser coverage to be found here and there and I think there's a reasonable amount of encyclopedic material to work with. (And to the extent this might still be a borderline case under NBASIC, while Dryden is certainly not a reliable source, such an indicator of contemporary significance should IMO weigh somewhat in favor of an article.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.