Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilie Schenkl

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 merge to Subhas Chandra Bose. Comments regarding the preservation of this article have only pointed to her relationship with Subhas Chandra Bose, which is not a policy backed argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Schenkl[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I don't know if she herself did anything particularly notable; but, her marriage with Subhas Chandra Bose was what she is notable for. There are several hits in google web and book searches. Meets WP:BASIC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the marriage itself is notable enough, because it remained controversial for years. There were speculations whether Shenkel is really Bose's wife or not. The marriage was kept in secrecy for various reasons. Unfortunately, I cannot supply online references from newspapers because those were Bengali newspapers from 1990s or before. See this, this. It remained a rather mysterious marriage, and a controversy whether she is really the wife or not. That's why Schenkle meets notability, slightly above than just a relationship. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason for deletion given. The claim to notability is being secretary and wife of one of the most famous of all Indian independence leaders. The former, at least, is likely to give her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, relationships do not confer notability. If you can point me to a biography or significant newspaper coverage of her, that would establish notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships usually don't, but positions (such as secretary) can do. And as Dwaipayanc says, it was a controversial marriage (and may not have even been a marriage), which may make her notable even for her relationship. Print sources are acceptable, and Dwaipayanc says there is information from Bengali newspapers. And there are a number of references to her even online. Her notability may be borderline, but I do think it's there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but consider merge or redirect - If there really were no claim to notability, A7 would apply here. However, notability does appear to be pretty weak. In such a case, I'd consider the question of WP:DUE, if maybe she's not worth an entire article but certainly a mention or a section in another article. As there are several claims to sources about this, I believe the best thing to do would be to allow improvements to happen, and if they don't within a reasonable amount of time, to merge or redirect the article as appropriate. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect to Subhash Chandra Bose. If her notability solely derives from her relationship to him, then information about her belongs in that article. This is particularly true given how short and, ultimately, uninformative this article is. If, as people point out, the marriage is controversial, then that is surely controversy related to Bose, and belongs there. Put it this way: is it controversial that Schenkl was married, or controversial that Bose was married? Since Schenkl herself is not independently famous, I believe it is the former, not the latter. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Subhash Chandra Bose, with no prejudice against de-merging if/when additional sourced content is found. I read through the introduction of Letters to Emilie Schenkl book and the relevant book extract from His Majesty’s Opponent with a view to beefing up the article, but didn't find much details about Schenkl to add. The current version can safely be merged with the Bose article (where the information would be relevant in any case) w/o any loss of details, and better context. Abecedare (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2013 (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.