Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll

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. The fact that she did nothing to earn her notability does not mean we have to ignore it. yandman 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll[edit]

Delete notability is not inherited even from the "wrong side of the bed". Her claims to fame: being a king's illegitimate daughter, marrying an earl, and reproducing. Any idea what she actually did seems sufficiently unnoteworthy to be in her biography. Since she has no independent notability, WP should not have an article on her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These claims make her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Hay, 18th Earl of Erroll. Google Books and Google Scholar between them turn up one source for "Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll", and that is a marriage registry--a primary, not secondary source. Her illegitimacy, marriage and children are already mentioned in her husband's article, and they appear to be the main facts of her life. No evidence now for a separate article on her and, if any ever turns up, the redirect can be turned into an article again. Rklear (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wasn't exactly hard to find two reliable secondary sources, which I have added. Anna Rundell (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This just an article that requires loving care, aka information to remove the stub template. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 01:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a little searching, I have found a lot of information about her, and all the more reason to keep this article. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If she's a countess, that's notable enough for me. JRP (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found and added additional sources and info about her. --Zeborah (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs work from someone who knows more about this subject than I do, but if she's good enough for the Earl of Erroll, she's good enough for me. 7triton7 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and notable. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this is by no means the least notable of its type, Wikipedia has far too many articles on married people about whom nothing is known except their birth, marriage, and children, all of which is already covered in their spouse's articles. No print encyclopedia would use space for people about whom so little is known; while Wikipedia can set that bar somewhat lower because disk storage for them is essentially costless, they are a nuisance to the reader -- you click on the link and discover absolutely nothing new. Jameslwoodward (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought. One of the comments above says, "If she's a Countess, that's notable enough for me." Well, first, she wasn't a Countess in her own right, she was the wife of an Earl. But even if she were a Countess, that doesn't guarantee a Wikipedia article. Of the 24 Earls and Countesses of Errol, only 9 have their own articles. Any of us could create articles for the remaining 15 that had the same information as this one -- birth, marriage, death, parents and children's names. But if what you want is genealogy, go to genealogics.org. Wikipedia is not a genealogy reference, it's intended to fill in the bare bones and tell us more about a person, if, and only if, more is known. To suggest that this article is worth keeping is to suggest that we need to create tens of thousands of new articles on nobility and their spouses.Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a) If she hadn't married the earl then her father would have given her a rank in her own right as he did for the rest of her brothers and sisters. b) Just as "Other things exist so this should too" is an invalid argument, so is "Other things don't exist so this shouldn't either". For a start, I've been thinking of creating articles for some of those earls and countesses (y'know, in my infinite spare time) based on information I've discovered while researching this. c) As for Wikipedia being meant to "tell us more about a person", yes: that's why I added the information about her portrait and about the mementoes of her father she kept. It's not much, I agree, but it is more than birth/death/marriage. It would be odd to include those things in her husband's article, and they are things that would interest someone wanting to know more about her. --Zeborah (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. There are thousands of similar nobles, most of whom just happened to be born to the right person at the right time. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that "she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I added one such book to the article. Anna Rundell (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passing WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 3 March 2009 (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.