Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Andrea Neilson

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Andrea Neilson[edit]

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

Delete no evidence of independent notability. Neilson has been written about solely because of his mother's notability and large public interest in her. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this on January 19 this year, intending to develop it, and borrowed the books I needed to do that. For some reason, Boleyn pounced on it. Within hours of its creation, he had added the notability and orphan tags, [1] then for some reason asked an admin to move it to a different (and incorrect) name. [2] Boleyn then added the PROD tag. [3]
I discovered all this when I came back online. I moved it back to the correct name, and removed the tags. [4] Boleyn reverted me. [5] I removed them again because I was emailing the sources to ask them to refer me to newspaper articles, and I was embarrassed to link to an article with a bunch of tags at the top, which I explained in the edit summary. [6] I also tried discussing it on Boleyn's talk page here, but it made no difference. When Boleyn added the tags for the third time, [7] I decided to stop working on the article and took it off my watchlist, because life's too short.
Two weeks later, Boleyn returned and add the PROD tag for the second time. [8] When another editor removed it, [9] Boleyn brought it here.
I'm explaining this so that editors know why the article is incomplete. I'd like to continue expanding it at some point—it's a very sad story about a boy left deeply disturbed by his mother's execution, and whose life touched even the men who had prosecuted her—but the books I borrowed are back in the library, so I don't have any source material I can use to expand it in time for this AfD. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy article does not indicate any notability itself, but as the creator indicates he has offline sources, userfy to allow whatever time he needs to add those sources and expand the article enough to show potential notability. As it is now, the article doesn't even explain why he is alternately referred to as "him" and "her"? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't refer to him as her. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SlimVirgin, please don't take this so personally. As I explained in my edit summaries, the notability and orphan tags were clearly valid (especially orphan, that couldn't really be disputed), so shouldn't have been removed until they were addressed. The article as it stands doesn't show why this person is notable, or why he would deserve more than a section in Ruth Ellis' article. I looked online to find sources to add, but found nothing that suggested he met the guidelines. I left it for a couple of weeks in the hope that it would improve, but as it hasn't and doesn't meet the guidelines, I'd recommend you edit the Ruth Ellis article (if you haven't already done so) to include info on her son and copy the article into User:SlimVirgin/sandbox where you can work on it and recreate it if you find sources which meet the criteria. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't proposers for deletion make helpful suggestions in the first place rather than push for deletion? And bear in mind a couple of weeks is no time at all for a busy person - or for someone who has taken time off from Wikipedia for annoyance management reasons or because they've been completely put off by the effort involved in trying to preserve one's own or someone else's useful work in assembling information that forms the basis of an eventually useful article. Opbeith (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SlimVirgin made it perfectly clear at the Talk page that s/he was working on improving the article. So why nominate for deletion? This is why people give up on Wikipedia. In any case Andre McCallum was important as a campaigner on the death penalty issue. "Don't take this so personally"? Classic. The Christmas Humphreys article and the reference to Christmas Humphreys's words as taped by Andre McCallum are surprisingly relevant to the general attitude of Wikipedia "pouncers" (not just deleters). Opbeith (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Monica Weller who ghost-wrote "Ruth Ellis: My Sister's Secret Life" with Muriel Jakubait, the 11 year old Andre was a source of evidence about Ruth Ellis's involvement with Desmond Cussen and how he took her to a forest to teach her how to shoot a gun. The undisclosed relationship between Ruth Ellis's "victim" Blakeley and Cussen, whom Weller claims ws the real killer, was an important element in the campaign to secure a posthumous pardon. [10]. The campaign for a posthumous pardon for Ruth Ellis is a notable cause in the UK. Ruth Ellis's son, his evidence about Cussen, his taping of Christmas Humphreys and public discussion of his suicide establish him as an independently significant character in the context of the campaign for a pardon and discussion of the issue of capital punishment in the UK. Opbeith (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to source coverage already discussed, I am noting additional discussion in books Lady Killers and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [11], and discussion on truTV.com. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ruth Ellis may have a claim to notability but this person does not. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ruth Ellis per JBSupreme. THF (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP concerns don't exist. Dead for a long time. Primary concern, is there enough sourcing located just about the individual? SV makes a good case that the answer is yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (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.