Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Lindsay Ramsay

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 keep. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Lindsay Ramsay

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No demonstrated notability other than being the daughter of Sir Alexander Lindsay and the spouse of artist Allan Ramsay. Relationships do not confer notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Should either be deleted or possibly merged with Allan Ramsay. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a brief search and turned up three sources, which confirmed the birth date and death and the elopement date. If I can find such information almost 300 years after her birth, I think she is likely notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is notable for the mere fact of having her DOB/DOD documented in secondary sources? Context matters - All sources that do mention her (or her DOB/DOD) establish no significance or notability other than her posing and serving as a muse to her notable husband, Allan Ramsay. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation. I strongly suggest a merge with Allan Ramsay, if not an outright delete. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more than her DOB documented in the sources. I've analyzed a lot of articles for AfD, and yes , I think there's enough here. Expectations are typically a little lower for those who have been dead for 300 years. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Previous AfD discussion mentions coverage in Mitchell's Women in Scotland, 1660-1780 and in Barker and Challis's Women's History: Britain, 1700-1850. Can't find these on Google books - can anyone give more info about the mentions there? Tacyarg (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was kept at previous AfD in 2008, under different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Lindsay (1726 - 1782). (Can someone please add this as the box which should appear at top of this AfD?) PamD 08:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: portrait is in Scottish National Gallery, a reader is likely to look her up to find out more about her, we have sourced content. Seems notable and encyclopedic. PamD 08:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found Barker and Chalus' book on Google where there are (for me) three sentences about her that I could see (about Lindsay herself rather than her husband or relatives). This book references "Virgins and Viragos" by Rosalind Kay Marshall where the snippet I see shows an index entry for her under the name Lindsay as a "see also" to her husband's entry. There is a great deal about her in, for example, "The life and art of Allan Ramsay" by Alistair Smart available on the Internet Archive.[1] WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy or guideline. It is advice as to what arguments are best avoided in deletion discussions and so is somewhat premature when referred to in an AFD nomination. It decidedly does not say that relatives of notable people are not notable or even that they are not notable if they would not have been written about except for their famous relatives. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation is an inappropriate argument to be making. As always we look for sources about the person themselves and in this case the sources seem entirely suitable for our purpose. Thincat (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator’s rationale stands. What exactly did she do besides exist a few centuries ago? It’s not like she was the subject of a famous work, so being in a gallery isn’t relevant to independent notability that is unable to be established. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's notable because reliable, independent sources took note of her. Notability is not temporary, and noted people need not accomplish great feats. pburka (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Pam and Thincat. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD and others - notability is just about met, this article is potentially useful, and it's doing no harm (very unlikely to be UPE or an SEO scam after 300 years...) GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thincat. and also it would be a great help to others to find details about her and i think there is no personal interest as the person died, I suggest to update it properly Onmyway22 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2020 (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.