Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansel


 * 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. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. The cited sources are either unreliable (Landedfamilies.blogspot.com), WP:PRIMARY (public records, archives, legal proceedings) or WP:REFBOMBING. Most of the assertions are effectively unsourced. It seems like the whole article is the original research of its authors. JBchrch  talk  19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann was the long-time lover of General Robert Manners and General Sir Charles Asgill. Both these army officers were notable in their own right and, as is obvious, have their own pages. They were both part of the royal court of King George III. Some would say this, in itself, is un-noteworthy, but as a story of it's time it is fascinating that she bore them both children, turn and turn about in the last three births, of seven in all. Charles Asgill died in her house, and The Gentleman's Magazine went along with their secrecy by failing to mention his place of death. Her last child is buried in her grave, which must have made her "spin in her grave" because this was the first clue which led to her being revealed for who she was. Does all this not make her a "story of the era", and that she and the two generals, managed to keep this secret - one of them having to adopt another name to do so? She is only revealed, in stark daylight, in court cases, which she must have hated, given her wish for secrecy. Her secrets and lies have now been uncovered, in the form of a DNA match between the descendants of children from both generals. A test performed by Professor Turi King's DNA company of choice. I request the page be kept. Anne (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does all this not make her a "story of the era"? It would, if any independent researcher had researched and written about her. I'm not making a recommendation here yet, because I'm still searching sources, but so far, this appears to be a family history without encyclopedic significance. (Btw,, it will be helpful to the closer if you put your "keep" recommendation in bold; it's a standard practice in AFD discussions.) Schazjmd   (talk)  22:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly you will find nothing Schazjmd - this is the point - two generals and their mistress lived secretive lives, and it is only because of the work done, over the past 50 years, by their descendants that the truth has come out. With a final flourish in the form of DNA proving the truth of what has been found. How sad that many of those who worked so hard are now dead, and will never know that they were right all along. Frankly, I do not feel inclined to fight this corner (for what might turn out to be weeks) - I have fought long and hard to get to the point of being able to share the findings (of several people) and do not feel inclined to fight any longer.  Perhaps you would do me a favour and recommend deletion?  Btw, I have chosen to be known as 'Anne' here, and would appreciate that courtesy if you don't mind. Anne (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There cannot be many women who were lovers of two generals and bore them both children. In my view Arbil44 has done an excellent job of using wikipedia to write about a matter which was probably heavily suppressed at the time: hence the limited coverage. This is a classic case of if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't only Anne's work; you were a major contributor to the article as well, with 60% of the text according to "Who Wrote That". Schazjmd   (talk)  22:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. In response to the comments above, I suggest that this story be published on a personal website or as a standalone publication, but not on Wikipedia. JBchrch   talk  22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I forget the expression, but something along the lines of "statistics and damned lies" - sorry for the misquote. Dormskirk knows that my IT skills are less than useless, and their efforts on the Mary Ann page were almost exclusively mopping up my mistakes. A kindness I have always appreciated enormously. We can't all be computer whizz kids, unfortunately. The content was all mine. Anne (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting: the programme, "Who wrote That" is clearly very deeply flawed. I confirm I did not write a word of the content: I have neither the aptitude or the scholarly knowledge of the subject matter: my only interest here was to help another editor who sought help. Dormskirk (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify further (and to account for Dormskirk's very large percentage of involvement) I wrote the article in a Sandbox, and at a given moment in time, Dormskirk created the article on the main page (if that is the right expression)? Kindness is in very short supply on Wikipedia, and Dormskirk's help has been of enormous value to me. Terse. Curtness. Rudeness. These are my overall experiences here.Anne (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you, editing Wikipedia through its god-awful user interface is much harder that creating a website through services like Wix or Squarespace. I'm sure you will find that it's a lot of fun, too. It will also give you much more control on the story that you investigated, and effectively insulate it from the complaints of self-appointed bureaucrats like myself. JBchrch   talk  23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion, however Mary Ann has been a side-issue to my main focus/es on WP. I have been 'here' since 2007 and (partly because of my very poor IT skills) it has mainly been a total nightmare experience. I have written the book (and yesterday updated with the DNA results) but no publisher is interested in Asgill, because nobody has ever heard of him in the UK. Catch 22, or what?  I have been advised, by a friendly professor, not to give up and get an agent. If I achieve my aim before I am dead, I shall try to resurrect the Mary Ann page, with my published findings as the source.  But then I will be slapped with a COI, so that will become the next Catch 22. Anne (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - The creator(s) of the article put a lot of work into it which is commendable. I've read the entire article twice now, but am failing to understand what this person is notable for. Is it because she had two notable lovers? If so, notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability requires verifiable evidence. DNA "evidence" is not the same as evidence of historical notability. The article reads like a family memorial or geneaology page, which is fine, but not appropriate for this encyclopedia. The subject, who sounds like she was an interesting and complex person, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for our general notability guideline - fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. What we need to meet the guidelines are verifiable, in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent from the subject. Perhaps an alternative to deletion would be to merge or redirect some info about her to the Robert Manners or the Sir Charles Asgill articles. I normally don't suggest referring women to associated men's articles, but in this case it seems from her article that this is what she is "best known" for. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH, I am unlikely to request deletion myself, now am I? Behind the scenes was a great deal of work, but I cannot live my life like this. If it is unsuitable for WP then let it go.  I do not have the inclination to merge, re-write or anything else. If anyone else wishes to do so, then that would be great, but for me this is now an issue I just want to "go away".Anne (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "that are independent from the subject". I take that as a very clear message that, should my book be published, my findings will be totally unacceptable to wikipedia. Just as I thought.  Oh, what irony. It was a wikipedia editor who urged me to take the plunge and write the book!  Irony here is in plentiful supply! Who else, but a descendant, would be bothered researching, and writing about, 3 people whose main purpose in life was to hide their tracks. That is why such people become forgotten in history. Anne (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you've misunderstood, . Independent of the subject means independent of the subject of the article, and you're not the subject of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the relevant policy is WP:SELFCITE. JBchrch   talk  12:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, well! Well meaning though I know you are both trying to be, and, there is a perennial problem in that nobody, but nobody else, has ever written about Mary Ann, so any new article on her (should I be published) would depend solely on that book, and then there would be this: "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." For the moment this is accademic anyway, but it looks to me as though Mary Ann is lost to history for ever now. At least she would be very happy!Anne (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's where edit requests (for adding material to existing articles) or a review by WP:AFC (for a new article) comes in, . Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is very depressing stuff. I have been accused of writing 60% of an article that that I did not write a word of. Meanwhile, Anne (who has published many scholarly articles), is being encouraged, instead, to use a website like Wix or Squarespace: the last thing we should be doing is discouraging the participation of high quality writers. Anne has already explained why you won't find in depth coverage but nobody is listening. Dormskirk (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree with the suggestion that Anne publishes the material on Wix or Squarespace if the aim is then to use that as a source for Wikipedia. A Wix or Squarespace site would be a self-published source and not considered reliable. A much better approach would be to get the research published in a historical society's journal that has some reputation for error checking and quality control. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done the historical society's journals to death now, and I don't intend to go down the self-publishing route either. It is the book, or nothing!Anne (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, a properly published book would be just as good. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It is high time that, once and for all, Landedfamilies.blogspot.com stopped having such a bad press. I have had frequent contact with the owner, Nick Kingsley, who is a former archivist at the National Archives at Kew, UK.  Who better to source archive material?  I may be wrong, but I assume this is the website referred to above?  Anne (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does Nick Kingsley fit this criterion? In any case, please note that both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC call for multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. JBchrch   talk  01:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know this is OT, but I hate to see someone as dedicated as Nick is, to his work, and as a man who does, or did, work as an archivist at Britain's National Archives, have his reputation demeaned here. I do not think it fair that he is found guilty without trial. There's a website I found, which I cannot access, but the following is interesting, at the very least: On this site, which was short-listed for the SAHGB Colvin Prize in 2019, I present the results of my research into the landowning families of the British Isles and the country houses which they owned. He is the author of at least three books: He works hard and knows what he is talking about, and I feel pained on his account. Anne (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He has also written a series of articles e.g. Perspectives and Priorities: The National Archives Vision for Sector Leadership and Archives for 21st Century in your region. Dormskirk (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a great mistake you are making in this discussion is to think that our rules express moral or personal judgements on certain persons, such as you or your materials, and that's not the case. Personally, I read (and use) what Wikipedia considers unreliable sources everyday and I enquire about what Wikipedia would consider non-notable subjects or persons probably every waking hour. I also find your work very interesting, which is why I suggested other outlets to publish it. But none of this changes the purpose, remit and scope of this particular project, as set forth by the consensus-based rules we are considering. These rules do not demean the reputation and honor of you or anyone: they just determine how this particular project functions. JBchrch   talk  14:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be but Kingsley is an established subject-matter expert as demonstrated by books, articles and being short-listed for the Colvin Prize which "is awarded annually to the author or authors of an outstanding work of reference that relates to the field of architectural history". He clearly is a subject-matter expert...or do you still deny that? Dormskirk (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My appreciation is that Kingsley is a subject-matter expert (as defined by SPS) in the field of archiving, and not British history. However, I want to leave the door open for differing opinions. JBchrch   talk  14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to contradict you, but the Colvin Prize is for "architectural history" not for "archiving". Dormskirk (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but SPS calls for previous RS publications in the relevant field, which in the case of Kingsley, would be archiving. I did not find scholarly publications by him related to architecture (or British history). I'm not aware that there is a consensus that prizes are sufficient to establish someone as a subject-matter expert, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. JBchrch   talk  14:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should nip this rather pointless discussion in the bud by pointing out even if Kingsley is deemed reliable all that he references is Mary Ann Mansel's year of birth and death and that she was the mistress of two people and had some children. He does nothing to establish notability. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so as long as it is demonstrated that Kingsley is reliable (and it would be a travesty to say he is not) and given that he does reference "Mansel's year of birth and death and that she was the mistress of two people and had some children", and providing there is at least one other reliable source, then my reading of WP:GNG is the "topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Dormskirk (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a whole book on architectural history by Kingsley: The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1660-1830 Vol 2. Dormskirk (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It goes on to state Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. A brief mention of her in an article about something else entirely would appear trivial to me. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nick Kingsley's blog is mentioned at the top of this page as being an unreliable source, it is therefore relevant to discuss it. Firstly, so far as deleting the Mary Ann page goes, what are we waiting for? I'm under no illusion that there is any hope of saving it.  Nor have I detected any disparagement of my own work, whether it be on wp or elsewhere. So, the main matter is determined, so far as I am concerned. Moving on to Kingsley I read "disparagement" of him and his work, intended or otherwise. I gave a link to three books he has had published and I would have thought that alone made his blog a viable and worthwhile source. Has anyone looked at my link?  He is a sole author of 3, and possibly a co-author of more. Dormskirk has also made a very good case for him.  I am coming from the point of view of "knowing him" - if online contact counts - and I know him to be a man who not only seeks the truth and nothing but the truth, but is also passionate about his work - researching stately homes and their occupants. His aim is to do them all before he dies! He knows this may be a bridge too far. He is a historian, an archivist and a blogger. It seems the latter is his crime.  I consider the "demeaning" of this man is apparent here, whether others can see it or not.  His blog should come off the unsavoury list and he should be a worthwhile and valued source. Whatever he has said, or not said, about Mary Ann is furthest from my mind. He's done far more research on Asgill House than I have myself. I feel very strongly on this matter, whether this the right place to express it or not. Anne (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As regards Kingsley's book on the Country Houses of Gloucestershire, it says "the chapters discuss and explain the social background..." It demonstrates beyond doubt that he is a subject matter expert on architectural history and, importantly, the social history of the people living in the buildings. Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If people wish to continue flogging the dead horse of the reliability of Kingsley so be it. I gave a link to three books he has had published and I would have thought that alone made his blog a viable and worthwhile source. No, you absolutely did not. You provided this link to Amazon, which is a search of books for "Nicholas Kingsley". Had you actually clicked on the Nicholas Kingsley author page you would find the three books this Nicholas Kingsley has written are GLBasic Programmers Reference Guide: Third Edition (self-explanatory), Two Wars (a short story a about "With the human race near total extinction after an alien invasion, a group of weary survivors stop to rest" and The Euniverse Is Here ("the fictional tale of the relationship between the EU and the UK"). That you somehow claim three books, two of them fiction and one about computer programming (which quite clearly is not "in the relevant field" as required by WP:SPS), written by someone with the same name as your blog author in some way makes that blog reliable suggests incredibly bad fact checking and attention to detail on your part. FDW777 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or on the off chance you are referring to the author of The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1830-2000 read WP:SPS, an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (emphasis in original). That book would, possibly, make him an established subject-matter expert on Gloucestershire country houses, not Mary Ann Mansel. FDW777 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your vile and sarcastic post shows you up, not anyone else. May I formally beg, on bended knees, to apologise for my lack of IT skills when trying to refer you to:
 * The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1500-1660 Vol 1
 * 4.5 out of 5 stars 2
 * The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1660-1830 Vol 2
 * 4.0 out of 5 stars 2
 * The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1500-1660
 * in order to prove that Kingsley is an expert on the houses of nobility AND THEIR OCCUPANTS. Asgill House is one of the houses he has covered AND ITS OCCUPANTS (i.e. Charles Asgill AND HIS MISTRESS)  Try clicking on the link AND DO YOUR RESEARCH. Every single poster, here, has been civil and courteous to me, except you.  Even more regrettably, YOU are the norm on Wikipedia. Anne (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting Amazon star ratings is really scraping the barrel, it has to be said. Attempting to confer subject matter status on every person that's had a one-night-stand in one of the houses he's written about is a novel approach, but doomed to failure. You also appear to be forgetting that it's already been established that Kingsley's coverage of Mary Ann Mansel is trivial in the extreme, so you're arguing about nothing. Kinglsey does not establih notablity per WP:GNG. FDW777 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This needs urgent administrator intervention right now: these attacks on Anne, in my view, are completely unacceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FOR THE LAST TIME, I HAVE NEVER USED KINGSLEY AS A REASON TO KEEP THE ARTICLE ON MARY ANN. I KNOW KINGSLEY AND HE COMES UNDER ATTACK IN THE OP - I WISH TO DEFEND A MAN I KNOW TO BE RELIABLE. You libel the man. How do you know he spent one night there? On the other hand, he managed to see the whole house, which was denied me and I've been there THREE TIMES. My comments about Kingsley have never had anything to do with Mary Ann.  You have attributed that to me with no reason. I HAVE NOT suggested that the page should be kept because of Kingsley's link on her page. Before your vile post, I had already written: "With regard to Nick Kingsley's blog. This is the only aspect of all of this that I would like to pursue and ask editors to advise me how to go about it. The evidence already presented, along with evidence presented by Dormskirk, leaves me wondering how on earth this worthy source can be classified as "unreliable". I emphasise, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mary Ann page, which is entirely incidental regarding my opinions. Anne (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Anne (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. I respect what is being done, unearthing history and retelling interesting stories. The problem is it exceeds the capabilities of Wikipedia which are limiting. Wikipedia is a secondary-source based encyclopedia where we report what has already been written in reliable secondary sources. I would expect to see some biographical discussions in journals and books, beyond basic facts like dates, home ownership, births and will. The impression is Anne is the first person to research and write on this topic in any depth, to recognize her story. If Anne does get a book published, yes it might be COI to use it as a source, but someone else could.  --  Green  C  02:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject appears to be noteworthy, but per WP:NOTESSAY, e.g. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge, as well as WP:BASIC, e.g. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and as discussed above and per my own research, the multiple independent and reliable secondary sources needed to support an article per the guidelines and policies do not appear to exist at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. There's a huge amount of original research in this article, and I've been unable to find sources that provide in-depth discussion of the subject to meet the notability criteria. If Arbil44 publishes her research somewhere reliable, then it could be used as a source and would help contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have misunderstood (again),, but you say "and I've been able to find sources that provide in-depth discussion of the subject to meet the notability criteria." Did you mean "unable"? Anne (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry - now corrected. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG by a significant margin. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: While I don't doubt it is not my place to wrap this up, I would certainly like to put it all behind me at the first possible opportunity.  This is holding me up with something I cannot do until this is over. It is naturally distressing to see years of work go down the drain. I would like to take this opportunity to thank for the strong support offered to me. It means a lot.
 * Since the majority have voted to delete the article, would any of those editors be prepared to edit the article to make it compliant? Even if it is only a Stub remaining? Rather than lose it all?
 * Discussion took place regarding the possibility of reinstating the article, if I ever have my book published? However, I doubt that would change anything, actually, because I know very little more than is in the article.   asked me about her secrets and lies. I can only suggest what they might have been, since I have had to interpret her actions in my own way. Besides, I did not consider it appropriate to tar her as a liar on the page. I know that, as a mother, she was loving and caring of her children, but she seems to have taken a very strange approach to the truth (the truth now totally confirmed by DNA evidence).
 * Furthermore, nothing in my book will change the fact that Mary Ann is not considered to be noteworthy, so discussions about the future were really a waste of time.
 * With regard to Nick Kingsley's blog. This is the only aspect of all of this that I would like to pursue and ask editors to advise me how to go about it. The evidence already presented, along with evidence presented by Dormskirk, leaves me wondering how on earth this worthy source can be classified as "unreliable". I emphasise, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mary Ann page, which is entirely incidental regarding my opinions. Anne (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , when an article is nominated for deletion, there is a formal process involved that entails discussion between editors. These "AfD"s (articles for deletion) proceedings usually take 7 days, but can be relisted and can go on longer. So this AfD will probably stay open until about Sept. 19, since it was nominated on Sept. 12. Any editor in good standing can post what is called an !vote (not a vote) along with their rationale for the article to be kept, deleted, merged, draftified or redirected. They are usually closed by an administrator who analyzes the discussion. !votes based on policy and guidelines hold more weight in establishing consensus (in other words it is not a numerical vote). If it is disturbing to you to read peoples comments, or you are feeling upset that your article may be deleted, you don't have to keep checking this page and commenting. You can "unwatch" it (take it off your watch list by unclicking the star in the menu bar). Let the AfD process unfold naturally. I hope that helps demystify things a little. There are some links in a box at the upper right corner "New to AfD? Read the primers!" about the AfD process if you would like to learn more information. Netherzone (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the situation. Unfortunately, it is not possible to explain why I need this to be over, but I need to know the outcome before I do something I need to do ...! Anne (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have collapsed the extended content on Landedfamilies.blogspot (Kingsley citation), as the discussion was getting off topic and unnecessarily heated. Please no yelling (writing in all caps) or personal attacks. The AfD is for Mansel, not Kingley. The content is still visible by clicking on the "show" link. I am not an admin, and anyone can undo this if they want. IMO, it is not helping the discussion to continue the Kingley discussion because all the citation says about Mansel is: He [Argill] himself had a mistress of long standing, with whom he co-habited from about 1821: Mary Ann Goodchild alias Mansel (1780-1854), who was also mistress to Gen. Sir Robert Manners (by whom she had six further children), which is not enough to establish her notability but is enough to establish that Mansel had two affairs. It is really not a big deal, I suggest dropping the stick. Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. Mea culpa but I was attacked, and my integrity dragged through the mud. I am courteous only to those courteous to me! Even you, unfailingly courteous, seem to have missed the point that I have never used Kingsley to advance my cause. Hence capitalising!Anne (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:FORUM - "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own . . . Primary (original) research". Almost exclusively WP:OR derived from WP:PRIMARY sources (or secondary sources that make no mention of the subject). The only secondary source I see that actually names the subject is a blog that only gives the person passing mention and does not support the vast majority of the narrative provided. Seems to fail WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, so stubbifying not a viable alternative. Agricolae (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (was for keep, but though this is a sort of unusual case, I think I agree with the others, there's isn't really enough RS here to substantiate this person for their own article. I hope as much as possible of this can be moved to the other two connected pages. Also, I'd like to thank Anne for your work contributing material to Wikipedia, please don't be discouraged, we need people like you!Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removal of the material that is referenced to primary documenttation is simply not an option. The entire article is built based on primary sources, with secondary sources only used to provide further information on peripheral aspects only gotten to via primary sources (e.g. using a primary source to say that she lived at a place, and then a secondary source that does not name the subject to give more details about that place). Without the bridge made via the primary source, the secondary-documented information loses its relevance.  We would be left with an article about four sentences long, and only so much if we consider the blog to be a WP:RS, which has been hotly disputed in this discussion. Even doing so, we would still lack the substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that underlies notablility. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This is potentially a decent article based on primary sources, which may well be worth having published somewhere, probably in a family history magazine. Unfortunately the subject is complete NN.  Possibly Userify for a sufficient period to enable the author to keep a copy to take the article elsewhere.  This is the kind of WP:OR that is legitimate to do and publish, but not in WP.  I am sorry to the author that this response will be discouraging, but WP cannot allow bios of NN people.  A brief mention in the bios of the two officer lovers, including a mention that she was previously (or subsequently) a mistress of the other might be legitimate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On your final point, I would say that that is almost certainly legitimate. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The following is already on Charles Asgill's article: The final two years of Asgill's life were spent at the home of his mistress, Mary Ann Goodchild, otherwise Mansel who was also mistress to General Robert Manners—at 15 Park Place South, near The Man in the Moon, Chelsea. Two codicils to his will were written and signed there shortly before his death. Which is more than enough on that page.
 * Much less is on the Robert Manners (grandson of the Duke of Rutland) page: General Manners continued as Colonel of the 30th Foot until his death in 1823. He was unmarried, but left children by Mary Ann Mansel (1780–1854). So, if anything goes anywhere, it should be to his page. I have already kept a copy of the Mary Ann article, but hope it will still be in the bowels of wp, and that a link to it there will be possible? Her two generals died weeks apart, one in June and the other in July 1823. She went to pieces, and the Manners family became wards of the Mansel children. In case anyone is interested, while I am descended from Charles Asgill, the DNA match has proved that I am also descended from General Manners.
 * Elsewhere I have already mentioned that she was simultaneously a lover to both! Her final 3 children were Manners', Asgill's, Manners! Charles, her Asgill son, is buried in her grave. Anne (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Anne, thank you for letting us know the best place to merge/redirect some facts in the event that the article is deleted. May I also suggest, if you have not done so already, to save a copy offline onto your own computer. Wikipedia has a policy/guideline to be aware of called WP:NOTWEBHOST, so while I'm not 100% sure about this, I don't think that there could be a link within any article to a draft or copy from a deleted article. That is because WP is not a webhost where material can be "parked" indefinitely. But it may be OK from your user page to create a link to a user subpage. It is easy to create a user subpage - basically it's just a user sandbox specific to a project. In this case, MAMansel. It won't live in "article space", but in "user space". An admin, or someone who is more knowledgeable than I can weigh in on whether this is a good suggestion or not. BTW, you know more about the IT end of WP than you realize! Plus, there are lots of places to ask for help, and many helpful pages (essays, guidelines, policies, etc.) to learn from. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some posters here who know that I have not broken through the glass ceiling of technology, and don't understand why not, after being here since 2007! I am going to put the Mary Ann article in my sandbox. If that is unacceptable, then I know it will be deleted! I use it from time to time for my own reference purposes, so that will be useful. I have already got it on my hard drive too, but 'live' in a sandbox will help a lot. Anne (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. I have faith in your IT skills. It took me a long time to lean what I know, and I feel like I'm still scratching the surface, but one day at a time! Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CommentAnne you can definitely put it in your sandbox, that's for you to keep and no one will touch it there. I often put things in there I am working on, even if I decide not to put them up. The other thing, if it does get deleted, your option to keep the material up is to shift as much of it that you can into the pages for her two lovers, as long as it is not Original research material. Anything you've got a legitimate RS for, and is connected to the other two fellows, shift it into their pages.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you I definitely don't want another word on the Asgill page, or that will be up for deletion too!!! Manners' page is more suitable. If you are a librarian in real life (!) there is something you might be able to help me with, if you would?  Please email me if you are willing to help me with a final item of research I cannot resolve! Anne (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Asgill is very clearly notable, so there's no risk of that article being deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that reassurance . When I said "another word" I really meant that I am worried about anything further being added, and then much more important aspects of the article will be cut. A discussion we've had elsewhere. Besides, I really do not want to belabour the Mary Ann connection, because then that means bringing in Charles Childs (and he's seriously not notable)! She is already mentioned.  That is enough. Please could you sign your post of yesterday? Anne (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now completed my signature of that post - I presume I miscalculated the number of tildes as it had the date but not my name. Apologies for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Agricolae has just said that the whole article is such a pile of rubbish that not even this is worth moving to the Manners article: In George III, A Personal History, by Christopher Hibbert on page 299 it is recorded:


 * Such was the tribute of popular attachment manifested in March 1789 towards a sovereign who, only seven years earlier, in March 1782, after losing a vast empire beyond the Atlantic, seemed to stand on a fearful precipice. [To celebrate the king's return to health] There were balls at the Pantheon and at the Duke of York's. A fête was held by White's, where Colonel Manners, who had taken over as equerry on the expiration of Colonel Greville's tour of duty, sang 'God Save the King' so lustily that he was asked not to be so loud. 'They pretended I was out of tune,' Manners said. 'But it was in such a good cause I did not mind.'

The diarist, Fanny Burney, recorded recollections regarding Robert Manners.

Manners' family seat was Bloxholm Hall in Lincolnshire. Anne (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, hasn't said that, . That quote is from a secondary source and is about Manners, so the article about Manners would be a good place for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the image of a house that one of Mansel's lovers family lived in, as it is unnecessary to this discussion, and does not contribute to whether or not the subject of this AfD is notable. Please folks, lets try to stay on topic! Experienced editors, let me know if I should have collapsed it rather than deleted the image file and I will self-revert. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is not an accurate summary of my statement, not at all. I said that the Mary Ann Mansel article, except for about four sentences, is either directly derived from primary sources or from secondary sources not mentioning Mary and linked to her only via primary-sourced material, and hence expunging the original research will not leave a viable article. Further, I implied, based on the stated conclusion that the absence of significant coverage of Mary Ann Mansel in secondary sources places her well short of satisfying the relevant criteria, that retention of any such stub created by such expungement would be against Wikipedia's policy requiring that article subjects be notable. I said nothing whatsoever about what material might be appropriate for the Mannners article, though now that you mention it, recall that a diary is a primary source so its use on any page is subject to the guidance of WP:PRIMARY. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My name here has been Anne for some time now; changed because I loathe my username, . Furthermore, I don't understand how the suggested section could be moved to Manners, because it is more than the stipulated four sentences which would be left per: "Without the bridge made via the primary source, the secondary-documented information loses its relevance. We would be left with an article about four sentences long [such sarcasm], and only so much if we consider the blog to be a WP:RS, which has been hotly disputed in this discussion". The last sentence was a direct and deliberate "hit" at me, since it is clear to everyone that I stand by my friends when I know them to be honest, decent and principled historians. I am not happy that certain people are unable to be civil or considerate, when most have shown that they can want the article deleted, without denigrating either me or my work. It can be done. Anne (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. There was a dispute over whether the blog should be considered a WP:RS, and it grew heated. Anyone who cares can see it themselves above, right here on this page.  There is nothing incivil or inconsiderate, there is no disparagement, it is not a 'hit', to take into account that such a disagreement exists when discussing what would remain after the removal of primary sources. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I used your username so that you would get a notification, Anne. If you don't like your username, you can request it be changed - see Changing username. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)a
 * , a couple of years ago I was told I couldn't, and shown how to nevertheless be known as Anne. Netherzone has managed to notify me this way . And why does Fanny Burney have a page dedicated to her if her work is not acceptable and she cannot be used as a source? She was simply recording the world around her. Why can Katherine Mayo be used but not Fanny Burney? I just don't understand. Anne (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you were misinformed about the username change, Anne. You can request one if you want. As for Fanny Burney, I haven't read anything about her but being notable and being considered a reliable source are different things. We have articles about notable conspiracy theorists, for example, but we don't treat them as reliable sources. However, no one has said she can't be used as a source - the debate appears to be whether she's a primary or secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look at your link and see if I can manage the IT involved, which is probably unlikely. So, are you saying that the link to Fanny Burney can be included in the material I suggested be moved from Mary Ann to Robert Manners, which I copied to this page, since earlier on you said it was suitable? But then Agricolae said Burney couldn't be used. Does no wp page use Burney as a source? What a terrible loss if not. It is no wonder I am confused. Anne (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agricolae hasn't said that Burney can't be used. Agricolae has said that Burney's diary isn't a secondary source and therefore doesn't contribute to establishing Mansel's notability. Primary sources can be used (judiciously) but they don't contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although Burney doesn't appear to mention Mansel, so why she's being used as a source in this article, I don't know. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mary Ann's lover was Robert Manners. Burney speaks about Robert Manners and so was used on her page, especially because of the bachelor/married man quote. Entirely appropriate.  Nobody here has noticed that I never once tried to use this to make Mary Ann notable, yet I am accused right left and centre of doing so. Nobody here has noticed that I have not once tried to keep the page (apart from my first post, but was I expected to vote 'delete' then)?   I begged for this to be over quickly, since clearly nobody can understand that all this, including the side issues, is very stressful for me. I've been accused of trying to say MA was notable because of her mention on the Kingsley blog. Not once, ever, did I suggest this.  I have not only had to face all the criticism of my work and how totally unsuitable it is, but nobody has listened to a word I have said.  The poster who libelled Kingsley never ever bothered to notice that not once did I suggest the page was worth keeping because of him. I had to resort to capitals to make the point, since that accusation went on for ever. Btw, I have been in touch with Kingsley and sent him a link to what has been said about him. I have been admonished, constantly, without anyone bothering to see if I said what they accused me of saying. All I want is for the page to go, quickly, but you will not see me vote 'Delete' - why should I?  Surely that is not expected of me, is it? Only I know how much work and expense went into it all. Anne (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is accusing you of anything, Anne. People are analysing the sources to determine whether they contribute to establishing notability, which happens in every deletion discussion where the nomination concerns notability (which is most of them). Deletion discussions typically last a week. If you don't want to participate in them, you don't have to. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you opt out if you were being discussed? Take a look at my post here: Anne (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC) and the one above it, where the vile and sarcastic thread had been collapsed (yet you say I was not accused of anything? That is beyond belief). It shows that still I was misunderstood (by someone who has been one of the most pleasant of posters here).Anne (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As for the comment about Fanny Burney - that is really laughable and clearly the poster has never heard of her. She recorded Georgian England, word for word, in a way no other did and we would have lost so much of value without her. She stood by the side of Manners often enough to recount his words, some of which were fascinating. She heard him complain bitterly about the new "window tax" which was going to penalise bachelors more than married men - he knowing that he was living the life of a married man, without being married - but he couldn't explain that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! People who know nothing about the subject should not comment. Anne (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this matters. If someone is reporting their own observations, they are a primary source. No matter how insightful the observer is, how detailed their record, or how closely connected they were to the people about whom they are reporting, they are still recording their own observations, and that makes them a primary source. Such factors affect their quality as a primary source, but have no bearing on whether their work is primary vs secondary. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no significant coverage by reliable sources to support notability. The article is original research that may be appropriate for publication elsewhere, but not as a Wikipedia article. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:13, 17 September 2021 (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.