Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Shackleton

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 of the debate was merged and redirected to Ernest Shackleton, as the James Caird Society is apparently notable enough to be mentioned there, and I have added her name to that section as the current Life President. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Shackleton[edit]

Notability not established. Mais oui! 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google gets 810 hits. I neither support nor oppose deletion.--Jusjih 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in hopes of further expansion. Arbusto 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'hopes'? Wouldn't actually expanding the article be better? A quick google and see what you find? Average Earthman 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google is not the only possible source for content of legitimate articles.davidzuccaro 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a source - better than nothing. My quibble is with people who say an article should be expanded but make no effort at all to expand it. Average Earthman 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless evidence of notability is provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and does not satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added sources to enable a more informed judgement to take place. Average Earthman 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. However, based on what I see, my recommendation remains the same. PJM 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless expanded to show notability. Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Mystache 12:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable by merit of her grandfather.davidzuccaro 13:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, does that mean that every grandchild of every notable person deserves their own Wikipedia article? Mmmm... --Mais oui! 13:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but grandchildren of famous polar explorers such as Ernest Shackleton inherit a certain degree of notability justifying a wikipedia article.davidzuccaro 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being related to someone notable is not enough to make one notable Barneyboo (Talk) 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barneyboo is correct, davidzuccaro is incorrect, per multiple precedents. There's no longer anything specific on the topic in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents nor the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page linked from it, but there used to be, and most such AfD's end in a "merge" or "delete" consensus. Alexandra Shackleton has at least a bit of notability (in WP's terms) established by the NOVA interview, but most of it is "here's the person who knows and cares enough about Ernest S to interview", not stuff that imputes much encyclopedic importance to her. This is right on the edge of my threshold for inclusion, but I'm voting weak keep simply because she was featured (not just interviewed somewhere deep within a documentary) and I'm assuming NOVA had an audience well over 5000. Writing forewords and christening ships don't show up on my WP radar regardless of whether I might be a polar exploration fan on my own time. Barno 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also be fine with a merge to the Ernest S article's Legacy section, for the reason given by AE below. Barno 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn in her own right. —porges_(talk) 03:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it, perhaps a merge of the most valid information to the Legacy section of the Shackleton article would be appropriate, since all her notable work is related to that legacy. Average Earthman 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge works for me. — RJH 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge might do it. Grandchildren of famous people are not inherently notable. Alphax ^τεχ 16:40, 28 April 2006 (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.