Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Mary Gainsford


 * 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 Hugh John Macdonald. Obvious consensus not to retain as a standalone article. Redirecting as a WP:ATD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Isabella Mary Gainsford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no personal notability whatsoever  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BASIC, http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/pageant/04/macdonaldgranddaughter.shtml, http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/macdonald_family.shtml#jack, http://www.friendsofdalnavert.ca/isabella-daisy, https://newspaperarchive.com/ca/mb/winnipeg/winnipeg-tribune/1955/oct-17-p-17/, https://newspaperarchive.com/ca/mb/winnipeg/winnipeg-tribune/1959/apr-17-p-32/, and https://newspaperarchive.com/ca/mb/winnipeg/winnipeg-free-press/1959/jun-18-p-50/ are about her, which I think is significant coverage. Several of the other sources cited constitute non-in-depth but non-trivial coverage as well. I don't think this is a case of WP:INHERIT. Samsmachado (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a fairly well-sourced article, passing GNG. The sources show that she had a notable position in society. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the lead does not point to notability. Can the woman be defined in some other way than by her relationships? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Defining_women_by_their_relationships DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as she has no notability outside of her relationships to father and grandfather. Her existence and some of her movements have been documented, but that is insufficient for notability. See:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited
 * Happy to change vote if someone finds out she did something of note. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hugh_John_Macdonald, perhaps renaming the section as "Marriage and family" and including her dates and perhaps that final reference (pity it's not readable online, but I'm sure it's a valid obituary article). There are a lot of incoming redirects, which will resolve into redirects to follow that main redirect (deleting before redirecting would lose them). Any article whose lead defines someone only as a daughter and grand-daughter raises questions of notability, and the categories reflect this: she existed, and was a prime minister's grand-daughter, full stop. She doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy. Nice article for a family or local history website but not appropriate for an international encyclopedia. Pam  D  10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be in play here a surprising ignorance of a historical period that is comparatively recent: she was an heiress and a society figure; yes, that meant her position in society was dependent on her relationship to men (we're talking about what is often characterised as a "patriarchal society"); but that does not mean her position in society was not "notable". And to pre-empt wikilawyering misreadings: to say that she in fact, in the conditions of her time, inherited a position that gave her notability is not to say that notability (per se) is inherited. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but for me it's not "ignorance of a historical period" but closer to WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's not her position in society in relation to men that is of concern. It's the absence of any other way to write her article. She was a woman. At most, a socialite, but the article doesn't even go that far. She acted once. She received an inheritance. She received birthday wishes. She was the guest of honor at a banquet. Some socialites have Wikipedia articles... they are suffragettes, writers, publishers/editors, activists, advocates, educators, trailblazers, scholars, artists, and scientists. If there is more to this subject, add it to the article and I'm happy to change my vote, but in its present state, this reads like an entry in a self-published family history book. One could draft this much or more on the nieces, nephews, cousins, in-laws, grand-children and great-grandchildren of most socially prominent people. Grandchildren of heads of state are not inherently notable. Take away the relationship to the prime minister and she is a woman of society who was born, lived, and died. That's a great thing... but not for an encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so people aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to have been married to, but nohing stated here demonstrates that she has any standalone notability — even most of the sources are more about her husband than her per se. and the relatively few that are actually about her still aren't really making a strong case that she needs her own article. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number" — it most certainly does still test the sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and things like being the guest of honour at a fundraising banquet and receiving birthday wishes from a friend (even a notable friend) are not inherently noteworthy contexts. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Someone Who Was Actually Notable - There just isn't anything in here that suggests notability. She had notable relatives. She was not herself notable. The obituary listed is literally a list of her male relatives without any achievements of her own. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing really to guarantee the notability of the subject per nom. Abishe (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. just because her grandfather was notable does not make her notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CommentPer WP:NOTINHERITED "individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."Samsmachado (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the redirect particularity when there is not a jot of notability.  scope_creep Talk  08:37, 26 May 2020 (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.