Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Stanley


 * 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   delete. JForget 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Stanley

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely non-notable. Page apparently created solely due to prominent descendant 19 generations later. Agricolae (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Agricolae (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nominator, no independent claim to notability here. She might deserve a mention in some article (something about Obama's genealogy), but not a separate article about her. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Thousands of people are descended from Edward I. Equally at 20 generations, any given person has about 1,000,000 ancestors.  The whole business is completely NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons given above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If we start creating articles for every distant relative of President Obama, we'll double the size of Wikipedia with those alone.  Fails WP:BIO so get rid of it.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Dwain (talk)
 * Expand with what? What about her is noteworthy that justifies a page? Yes, she had parents and a husband and children. She was born and married and died. She probably even brought a minor property or two to her husband as the result of the marriage, but that is all you are going to find. She did nothing that merits special note, that made her different from the thousands of her contemporaries, nor has she received any significant coverage by historians as an individual (rather than as a conduit through whom genealogists trace their pedigrees). Katherine may be ancestral to millions of people, great and anonymous alike, but she simply is not a notable person by Wikipedia standards. Agricolae (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wp:NOTINHERITED. (Incidentally, I'm distantly related - although nowhere near this distantly - to KT Tunstall. Does that mean I can have my own article?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  23:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look further, there is nothing to indicate notabuility on the page of her mother, Joan Gousell, her grandmother Elizabeth de Bohun, or her great-grandmother Elizabeth de Badlesmere. The latter two follow the same cookie-cutter approach to creating a page for someone's wife. Born, parents, grandparents, married, all kinds of things her husband did, children, when her husband died, when she died, important people descended from her.  None of this indicates notability - all appear to exist due to a failure to apply WP:NOTINHERITED appropriately. Agricolae (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - a textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED. As Agricolae points out above, there are many other articles this applies to as well, but just because they exist doesn't mean we should keep this one. Robofish (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I was not arguing that the existence of others means this one should be kept. I was suggesting that there appear to be others that should also be removed. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 3 December 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.