Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Hyde


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary Hyde

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable person; notability is not inherited. The achievements of her husband and children have no affect on the notability of this woman, who's only achievements seem to be marrying the former and giving birth to the latter. Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Her husband and children may be notable but what has she done to make her so? NoVomit (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The achievements of her husband and children have no affect on the notability of this woman? It is exactly those achievements that hold a mirror up to reflect her achievements. It is bad enough that women like Mary Hyde, who played an integral part in their husband's business affairs, were not in any way lauded publicly in their lifetimes. But to then not let their contribution to be recognised in future generations? If this article is removed it will be denegrating the important role of women in history. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue for it to be kept, please argue based on Wikipedia policy. Notability is not inherited, no; if it was we'd have to include articles on every famous persons husband, and sons, and father, and mother, and grandfather, and grandmother, and so on simply because they 'hold a mirror up'. I'd ask this of you; what, of note, has Mary Hyde done? Being married to particular people doesn't count. Neither, really, does her 'integral part in her husbands business affairs'; the business itself is not that notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability is not inherited, and as User:Ironholds has pointed out above, if we included every person who was related to or maybe had some influence on a famous person, pretty much everyone would have a biography here. Yes, her husband and son were notable, but she was not.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Hopefully the article has now been edited to overcome your objections, and the question to "What has Mary done?" has been answered. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the same as before, but in greater detail; brought up kids, played a role in a merchants company. Ironholds (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.Taking the government of the day to court and winning is notable. This woman's story also makes interesting reading. Kamelblm (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, many people take the government to court. Examples: Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v. Blackpool City Council, or Gibson v. Manchester City Council (which also went to the House of Lords in the end). Famous cases in the history of contract law that made massive impacts on the state of law in that area. However. Taking the government to court does not make somebody notable. If the case had an impact on the state of law, we should have an article on the case. Creating an article on the claimant when the only thing "notable" they have done with their life is take the government to court is not valid, firstly because people known for individual acts should not normally be given an article and secondly because the only content in it of any interest would be found just as easily in the page for the case itself. Ironholds (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there's much here that is actually about Simeon Lord. The extra information remaining, after discounting that, deals mainly with the posthumous continuation of that person's business and (to a minor extent) a prior marriage.  A merger to that article would thus seem appropriate, except that I cannot find a single reliable source to back up the information.  There's none actually cited in the article that covers the extra information given here, and searching I cannot find a source that documents this.  The one source cited is actually a mailing list submission, ostensibly by a person whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy is unknown, and which (by the very nature of Internet electronic mail) cannot be guaranteed to be by the person named as its author in the first place.  And it doesn't even support most of the (extra) content here. So since the extra mergeable content appears to be unverifiable from sources that readers can actually trust, or even from any sources at all, a simple redirect will do. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. It seems that Mary was an important person in the early days of NSW. For a woman to take the government to court in those days in a penal colony is indeed notable. Her story is an important part of the history of NSW and it should remain. Sources are likely to exist but not on the web. They will be in the State Library of NSW. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Important historical figure. Managing an estate of that size--from the sources, is a significant accomplishment. ₤16,000 would probably be the equivalent of $3 million, for a small part of the estate. That the House of Lords took it is significant--but I am a little confused, shouldn't it have gone to the Privy Council? is also significant. Considering cultural bias, this  would be sufficient for an article. DGG (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a Keep but I can't find the story in all the words. What the heck did she sue for?  I was trying to put it in the first sentence, as that appears to be what she most notable for, but I can't find it!  This article is in desperate need of a rewrite, starting with removing all the asides and unrelated material, then putting what she was famous for first.  I'd help if I could find it!  --KP Botany (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, no-one has yet put forward a reliable source documenting any of those parts of the article. I certainly wasn't able to find one.  This is one of the reasons why we don't include unverifiable content, of course.  It is impossible to fix.  Welcome to the mess that happens when people ignore verifiability in favour of subjective personal opinions as to importance. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't find a particular source about the lawsuit, and I can't read what's in the article to find it. I've asked the editor to put forth, but without this information.  DGG does have a point, though, managing an estate of that size, but that's based on it having been her husband's and that might be redirect.  --KP Botany (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks references needed to meet WP:V or WP:BIO. It should be very easy to find references for a woman like this - if the article is accurate then she would have been one of the most prominent women in Australia at the time and would have an entry in databases such as the Australian dictionary of biography and any number of Australian history websites. Instead, she's not even mentioned by name in her husband's ADB entry (she's referred to only as "the mother of his children" and that Lord married her belatedly) and there's only a single result on her in the results of a search in Google Australia on both versions of her name ( and ) and it's a photo of her in the collection of a museum which is already in the article. As there are hundreds of active Australian editors, many of whom have a great interest in Australian history and access to good quality reference material, there is no cultural bias against Australian articles as suggested above (probably the opposite in fact!) and some of the keep comments seem to be close to WP:ILIKEIT.  Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For your googling do not stick to Australia for your search results as not all Australians publish on Australian web-sites. Try googling “Mary Hyde convict” and you will find the following link Convicts to Australia which will then lead you to this page Mary Hyde. Try googling “Mary Hyde Black” and you will find two more web-sites (referenced in the article). These three web-sites give some of the details of her life but, unfortunately, no mention of the court case. - The only reference that you will find on-line about her court case is in her husband’s entry in The Australian Dictionery Of Biography Online Edition article on Simeon Lord where, unfortunately she isn’t even mentioned by name. But it says more than ”after he belatedly married the mother of his children”. It also gives details of the business that she owned after her husbands death, and says “In 1855 with a litigious pertinacity worthy of Simeon himself, his widow fought the commissioners of the city of Sydney to the House of Lords, winning compensation of more than £15,600 for the inundation of part of the Botany property and the loss of the stream which drove the mill.” - That this court case existed, and that she won it, is both verifiable, and the references were given in the article. - History has largely ignored this woman. Why? Because she was a woman living in a male-dominated society in which women had very little power. Details of her court case, however, can be found off-line in newspaper archives, and in the records of the court proceedings. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC). Edited Selkcerf0142 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable content? No Way! But, unfortunately, details given in the article largely do not come from online sources, like details about what was published in the Government Gazette of July 1855. They come from archived original documentation that is not available on-line. - Although not relevant to the discussion, but just in case anyone is wondering, I am not related to this woman Mary Hyde. I do think, however, that history should not have ignored her. Selkcerf0142 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument that the lack of verifiable content and the 'glossing over' of her story is as a result of her gender fails quite magnificently; the ADB volume covering this time period was published in 1966-7, a period of increasing liberation for women. I'd also reiterate: winning a case in the House of Lords does not make one notable. If the case heralded a change in the legal system it should have an article, but the plaintiff? No.Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been following this argument for deletion with some interest and find that the argument for deletion seems to be based on a rather shallow understanding of history of the time period that this article is based in and that the arguments used to defend your position are fraught with glaring errors to say the least!

Let’s take a more in depth look at the history aspect of the article firstly.

Firstly the subject is a woman which in and of itself meant that she had almost no rights in society at the time in Australian history. Women were more the chattels of their husbands than individuals in their own rights. And she was a transported female convict had previously had very negative dealings with the English court system. Now, a women who had been part of the lowest class in society, dared to think she could take on the government of the day, which it is of no suprise that she lost in the New South Wales courts. She then dared to think that she could pursue her case even as far as back to the English courts where she had previously been a victim.

Secondly the chances that she had a education at this time worth a pinch of salt is laughable considering her position in society. What father of her time, from their station in society would have felt it was worth educating a daughter let alone be able to afford it?

Next we need to consider the fact that at a mere 23 years of age she had been left without a means of support due to the disappearance of the father of her two children and might I add that she wasn’t married at to the father at this time which makes it all the worse.

Taking just these few points into consideration we have to say that the fact that she not only survived but actually managed to prosper to the point of being able to take the Commissioners of the city of Sydney to the House of Lords and win the case has to be considered a “NOTABLE” achievement in and of itself by any reasonable person. And that isn’t even considering that she was the age of 76 at the time!

But let’s not leave it there; we should look at some of the arguments being used to discredit this article.

A claim is made that we should compare the following cases to the one fought by the lady in question.

“Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v. Blackpool City Council (1990) or Gibson v. Manchester City Council (1979) (which also went to the House of Lords in the end).

To say the either of these cases can be compared is facetious to say the least. On one hand we have an organisation that is taking their local council to court and secondly we have a case were a person takes his council to court and loses. Both cases were held in recent years compared to a court case decided in a woman’s favour in 1855 in the House of Lords. How these can be put forth as an argument to delete this article shows a lack of understanding of what the lady in question not only had to overcome but what she actually accomplished. Remember that to fight a case in the House of Lords in England at this time, it wasn’t as if she could jump on the phone and then jump in her car and drive down to the House of Lords. This was accomplished in the days of sailing ships and a trip to England from Sydney was a three month trip one way. She was a 75 year old woman at the time of the court case we should also keep in mind!

Next we have the following:

''“Your argument that the lack of verifiable content and the 'glossing over' of her story is as a result of her gender fails quite magnificently; the ADB volume covering this time period was published in 1966-7, a period of increasing liberation for women. I'd also reiterate: winning a case in the House of Lords does not make one notable. If the case heralded a change in the legal system it should have an article, but the plaintiff? No.”''

Talk about “failing miserably”, that you ask us to consider an article published over 40 years ago during what you claim was a “period of increasing liberation for women” as a form of proof that the information contained within should be considered infallible once again shows a considerable lacking in judgment. Remember that this was a time when African Americans were fighting for equal rights and that the Australian Aboriginal was just being given the right to vote. It was still a male dominated society and this would have permeated all aspects of society even I would suggest the vaunted ADB of the time!

This article should be kept as an important part of Australian history, and allowed to develop into a much needed point of reference about this woman and her “NOTABLE” accomplishments.Kamelblm (talk) 00:34, 7 January 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.