Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Stuyvesant


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Stuyvesant

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I cannot figure out why the person would notable. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. (see WP:BIO).  Ilyushka ☃  Talk!Contribs 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue either. Maybe Lightning12 could explain just why he started an article on Margaret. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article would stand a good chance of being speedily deleted under criteria A7 - no indication of importance...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to bring it to AFD instead because the name gave few thousand google hits. I wasn't sure if I missed something in the article that makes her notable.  Ilyushka ☃  Talk!Contribs 09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any hint of notability in what Lightning12 wrote. Nor could I find any google hit which suggested notability, although I didn't inspect all 2,680 hits. There seem to have been a lot of women whose name included "Margaret Stuyvesant", such as:
 * Margaret Stuyvesant Rutherford White, who lived in the 19th century
 * her mother, Margaret Stuyvesant Chanler Rutherford
 * Margaret Stuyvesant Thorp
 * Margaret Stuyvesant Wainwright
 * Margaret Stuyvesant, who lived in the 18th century
 * Margaret Stuyvesant Dart, an author
 * Margaret Stuyvesant Ten Broeck Gibson
 * The Margaret whose page's deletion is being considered is mentioned numerous times in genealogy pages, but none of these pages suggest that she did anything which would be "notable". It is quite likely she has hundreds, if not thousands, of descendants who list her name in their family trees.
 * The onus is still on Lightning12 to justify the existence of a wiki-article for Margaret Stuyvesant!

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now somebody at an IP address copied a huge mass of data from somewhere into Margaret's article. But I still don't see anything in all this stuff which indicates what the old gal did that was notable. Yes, she happened to be a half sister of a Dutch governor. Yes, she married a guy who might possibly have been prominent. Her kids and descendants seemed to be a part of the Dutch upper class which ran things in New York until long after the Brits took over.

But what did she do ?????

And furthermore, all the new text looks like trash. Mr. 69.120.6.142 (could he really be Lightning12?) doesn't seem to have any idea how to format something so it'll look like a wiki-article.

Let's delete the article! That's my recommendation. What does anybody else think ?????

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The format of the article isn't the point - that could be fixed if the subject was notable.  Notability by association is not considered notability under WP guidelines (WP:INHERITED).  Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it's all been said above.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (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.