Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Ogle

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. Thank you to E.M.Gregory for the interesting hypotheses Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Ogle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This missionary doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article doesn't even specify when she lived. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this article has been on Wikipedia for years, so a Google search turns up mirror after mirror of this article, without finding any good independent sources about the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source we have is really just a passing mention in a work about the clearly notable Bakht Singh. Ogle is not claimed to have been a major influence on Bagkt Singh even there. We would need much better sources to have a well sourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ogle is the surname of multiple noble and genteel English families, including the a family of 19th century Baronets. Most English Daisys of that period were Margarets. Some Margaret connected to that family is likely to be "our" Lady Ogle, but her actual name is unlikely to have been Daisy, which (in that period) is almost certainly only a nickname. Hypothersis #1.) I wonder if "Lady" is a "courtesy" title given to a lady in India, a sort of corruption of honorific like Memsahib that might have been applied to a ladylike missionary, who may be one of the myriad Margarets the fecund Ogles produced. Hypothesis # 2.) is that this is a garbled version of Lady Ogle (Born Eliza Sophia Frances Roe) who married Sir Cholener Ogle, 3rd Baronet (son of Sir Charles Ogle, 2nd Baronet) in 1842 and by the 1850s was living as a widow at Withdeane Court, near Brighton, where she appears quite a lot in the historical record for doing things funding prayer books for missionaries in India, and for other activities unrelated to India or missions. She might support a page on her own. Hypothesis # 3.) The Lady Ogle who turns up in books about Bakht Singh in sentences like "A few days later a letter from Lady Ogle came inviting him to Silverdale at Coonoor for a time of rest as her guest." was the wife of one of the early 20th century Baronets Ogle (Who would have been called Sir , that is, by his given name , not called Sir Ogle - so would be a bit harder to find); or a Lady Margaret married a man named Ogle who served the Raj in some capacity, and she was universally called Lady Daisy Ogle and was supportive of Singh and perhaps of missionaries. Such a person might even have been widowed and stayed on in India as a missionary. However, My best guess, however (only a guess) is Hypothesis # 4.) That there was a missionary called Lady Daily Ogle, the "Lady" a sort of informal honorific and Daisy a nickname, who served in India and who accounts for this article but who is not notable, but that since searches for her name with keywords like "India" and "missionary" produce hits on at least 1 wife of a Baronet Ogle (1850s), and another Lady Daisy Ogle (early 20th century) it is difficult to find our Daisy. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability and there's nothing at all to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.