Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Kennard (2nd nomination)

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. Sufficient notability demonstrated, though some cleanup would benefit the article. Tone 21:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kennard[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and the article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She is mentioned only in passing as a friend of Queen Elizabeth (and a rumored love interest of Prince Philip). The one article that is about her, by the Evening Standard, is all about her familial connections. I do not see why Wikipedia should cover this topic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In aristocratic systems, familial connections create notable social positions. Her position has led to her being mentioned and profiled in the press and in books about royalty, as well as images of her being held in national collections. Wikipedia should cover this topic because anybody coming across such a mention or image (or writing such a book) might very well want to look her up to find out more about who she was and how she was connected. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to the press articles and books in which she has been profiled? I do not think merely being mentioned counts as significant coverage. Neither does appearing in a series of family portraits. The coverage should be proven, not just asserted. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was profiled in the London Evening Standard. You said so yourself. You don't think that counts, because the journalist goes into her family connections, but those family connections are precisely what the publisher of the WP:RS thought made her worth covering, and if a reliable source thinks she's worth covering then we should include her and explain why. That's how WP:GNG works. If there's a country in which snail racing is national news, then snail racing is notable in that country, however stupid we may think it. We don't get to say "even if it's national news, snail racing doesn't count as notable". The same goes for aristocratic connections. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for an example of a book, the first hit on Google Books is one written by Raleigh Trevelyan and published by Faber and Faber that gives a lot more information about her [1], so you know, we're not looking at dodgy genealogy websites here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Evening Standard profile is certainly significant coverage. I'm not able to see the contents of the book Andreas Philopater mentioned. Could you perhaps share a brief extract or describe its coverage of the subject? pburka (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on this link and searching for "Gina". The book is about her family, and describes her background, education, courtship and marriage. But as I say, that is only the first hit on Google Books, where you should also be able to find a number of other books that quote her as an authority on the family life of the royal family. I would guess WP:BEFORE was complicated by searching for her as "Kennard", a name she only acquired late in life through her second marriage. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be geofenced. Google won't show me anything inside that book. pburka (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can at least see the title (it is already cited in the article) and you now have some idea of the contents. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should keep this. She's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so she passes WP:BASIC. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, but the genealogical data should be rewritten as prose. pburka (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is a genealogical record and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything about the subject directly and indepth. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." // Timothy :: talk 01:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources out there that treat her as notable beyond the newspaper profile and the book both already cited in the article. Nobody is saying she is notable because she can be connected to notable people (what NOTINHERITED is actually about): she is notable because she literally inherited a notable position in society because of how aristocracies work (which has nothing whatsoever to do with NOTINHERITED, it is inheritance in a very different sense). Wikipedia is NOTGENEALOGY, but genealogy is key to how a hereditary aristocracy functions, and so is relevant to her position in such a social system. Again, it is her position in that social system ("one of the best connected women in the country"), not whether or how she inherited it, that makes her notable in the WP sense. Apart from (or on top of) her own position in the social nexus of aristocracy, she is widely quoted as someone giving insight into royal family life (in books about Charles and Camila, Diana, Elizabeth and Philip, no doubt soon about her godson Andrew if there's anything remotely relevant on file, as well as things like this in the Daily Telegraph) so she is someone that people might want to look up to find out more about, and that very much does make her "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The users in favor of deletion have three arguments: that notability is not established per the WP:GNG, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and that deletion is warranted per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. The NOTINHERITED argument is unconvincing, as she is notable as an aristocrat- and inheriting that position does not disqualify her from having an article. It's like saying Queen Elizabeth II is not notable because even though she is a well-known queen, her position was inherited. NOTGENENEOLOGY is also unconvincing, as the article has some information that is not genealogical (although it could use cleanup). Finally, WP:GNG is met because there is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, namely the Evening Standard piece and the book referenced above. Because notability is met and no WP:NOT arguments apply, the article should be kept. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:20, 24 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.