Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiko Joeong-shun Lee, Viscountess Rothermere


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. --Shanel 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maiko Joeong-shun Lee, Viscountess Rothermere

 * Delete Subject is not notable. Article lacks sources. The links posted contain only photos or name of subject without biographical info. Second wife of a British peer. This entry is first reference I've heard to her. Thesaunterer 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found a reference: . Not sure about notability.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:43Z 
 * Thanks, but reference is from obituary of subject's husband. I could argue that there are many people mentioned in thousands of online obits who are not noteworthy.Thesaunterer 03:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Nonnotable" isn't a word.  &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep are aristocracy not inherently notable? Jcuk 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As per what guidline please? Dont wish to be awkward, just trying to learn as I go along Jcuk 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any guideline that says they are, or are not. I suppose WP:BIO could be used to argue that they're not notable.  However, go with common sense: many aristocrats are notable (a lot of people get titles because they're notable), but there are just as many who are not, who sit around looking like horses and flipping through Burke's Peerage.  This sort of thing needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, not as a simple, blanket "aristocrats are/are not notable" thing.  I'd say being an aristocrat makes them much more likely to be worth knowing about, but doesn't quite seal the bargain. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge She's not really notable outside of her husband's life, so merge the info about her into a section in Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere Night Gyr 15:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere. No sense in losing the information. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject is not notable, not even as aristocracy. She's not received in the best homes in England and was only Rothermere's second wife. 4.239.255.232 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.Cyberevil 15:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Vere Harmsworth, 3rd Viscount Rothermere.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 22:23Z 


 * Delete Not notable. No sources. Not so much as a proper date of birth. Hellokitty3 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources aren't there? It is difficult to find info on her, but I'm still trying...


 * Keep She is notable in particular for her work in the arts, especially the Philharmonia Orchestra (she is chairman of the patron's circle – the patron being the Prince of Wales!). I tried to look her up in Wikipedia last year after seeing her picture in a programme, but was disappointed to find nothing. So I thought an article was in order. --JRawle 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge). Subject not worthy of own entry. Lack of sources, lack of notability.NorthShoreNancy 21:04, 4 January 2006 (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.