Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerissa Bowes-Lyon


 * 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. While the controversy surrounding Bowes-Lyon's circumstance may justify coverage elsewhere, there is nothing in the article that establishes her own notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nerissa Bowes-Lyon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person. Only because of family commections, but notability is not inherited Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not raise the same issues as the article about her sister as she is now long dead, but she does not seem to meet notability requirements. --AJHingston (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article could possible be merged with her sister's. There was actually some controversy about the way the British royal family figuratively buried them for many years. Sometimes there can be matters of legitimate public controversy about the treatment of people with serious learning difficulties, which if already widely publicised becomes encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, that would be WP:BLP1E WP:1E. Is there an article about this controversy?  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly of me, she is not alive. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable by virtue of the numerous sources which cover it in detail. Warden (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I count two sources. Each article is about someone else.  One article devotes two sentences to the subject, the other six.  That does not seem to be "numerous" or "detail".  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, hie Thee to a dictionary. Two articles written a month apart are not "numerous." Please do not misrepresent the evidence for notability, unless you have in mind uncited sources sources beyond the two the rest of us know about. Edison (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - private peron with only coatracked claims of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Utterly nonnotable, though unfortunate, person. Edison (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad story but there would be no references at all if it were not for the royal connection. Notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:29, 7 June 2011 (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.