Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Walford Davies


 * 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 Walford Davies. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Lady Walford Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indications that this member of the British peerage is notable for anything other than whom she married or other connections. But notability is not inherited. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Walford Davies per above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to indicate independent notability, unless offline sources can be found. I don't see anything to merge into the Walford Davies article that is not already there and the name is not a likely search term that would justify a redirect. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: The article was tagged for speedily deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7. The speedy deletion tag was removed with the edit summary "decline A7, WP:INHERITED is not a CSD criteria, what would User:The Lady Catherine de Burgh say?" Now "WP:INHERITED is not a CSD criteria [sic]" is irrelevant, as nobody had said that it was, and I can only assume that the reference to the editor known as "The Lady Catherine de Burgh" is a joke. The article tells us nothing whatever about its subject apart from listing people she was related to, which is not a claim of significance. Can anyone give any good reason why I should not carry out the speedy deletion for which the article was nominated? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my case, I declined the CSD with a specific reference to WP:INHERITED because it implies there is a credible claim of significance (in this case, there indeed is, being married to a notable person) meaning the article does not meet the criteria. As I have !voted "redirect", I do not believe you have consensus to delete without the discussion, unless perhaps 5 other people turn up all !voting delete and it is closed per WP:SNOW. I see nothing wrong with taking a sentence or maybe two from what is written here and putting it in the main Walford Davies article. As a by-product, I find new editors tend to stick around longer if you don't smack their first article with a CSD-hammer. Just sayin'. Ritchie333 (talk) [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|(cont) ]] 13:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Dear, darling Connie was one of my closest friends; in fact, we came out together - that alone makes her more than notable. I can only assume that she has been nominated for deletion by the Bolshevik section of Wikipedia and it's very bad faith indeed. Connie was a very beautiful person inside and out which is a great deal more than can be said for most of the people here! She was married to two very notable men, I admit that does not make her quite as notable as me, who has been married to several, but if we are going to have the likes of Hilary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Mrs Mandela and that woman who married one of the Beatles who have all only been married to just one singular notable person, then Connie has done more than enough to deserve her own page. I don't wish to hear any more on this matter. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sarcasm noted. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sarcasm..? Anyway, my dear Lady Catherine, it's a bit of a pity that none of the famous people Lady WD was connected to, other than her first husband, have their own Wikipedia article. A sad oversight. Maybe it would help if you created articles for the rest of them? I do agree your coming out together is enough to make her notable. However… you realise the Bolshevik section of Wikipedia won't understand the term "coming out" as anything other than a reference to LGBT people coming out of the closet? I've linked your (to any refined sensibility of course self-explanatory) term above to the article Debutante. I did this after some hesitation, indeed, as the notion of you and Lady WD exiting "the closet" hand in hand might raise a flood of excited "Keep" votes for the bio of this intriguing woman. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Thank you Mrs Bishonen, I am disappointed that you have brought smut into this conversation. I don't hold with all the gayness and whatnot, far too much of it about - in my young day, a jolly good dose of cod liver oil used to cure all that sort of thing. All these people have far too much time on their hands, no wonder they are all fiddling about with each other - reintroduce conscription that's what I say. Returning to subject: I note that Lady Walford Davies is Godmother to Bridget Jones. What more has the poor woman got to do to be notable? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in this day and age a spot on reality television does the trick. Well it worked for this lady and this lady. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Walford Davies or Delete. Not notable Paul W (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect as there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge as appropriate, but there is nothing notable here. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Walford Davies as a valid search term. North America1000 21:35, 21 June 2016 (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.