Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Hatto

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 delete and redirect to Arthur Thomas Hatto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Hatto[edit]

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

Small business owner, donated collection to a cultural institution which in turn published a short bio of her on the webpage describing said collection: [1]. Sadly, there are pretty much no other sources. The creator has made arguments on article's talk and DYK page which I expect they'll copy here, but sadly, nothing in them seems sufficient to me to counter the simple fact she is not notable and fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. (And as sympathetic I am towards the entire 'Women in Red' initiative, they have to be notable to get an article around here). The subject may be admirable, but until there are sources discussing her life and significance beyond few sentences on a single webpage (and her bio was likely submitted by her family for that page), she is non-notable. PS. Some content could be merged either to Arthur Thomas Hatto or to the Royal Opera House (maybe Collections of the Royal Opera House would be a notable subarticle?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She founded two successful businesses after escaping from Nazi Germany, had her products sold at prominent stores, and is one of only seven individuals who have had their collections of photography added to the collection of the Royal Opera House. Taking as a whole the 19 individuals who have had their collections added to the ROH as special collections, at least 13 of them have Wikipedia pages.

At the same time, some of the nominator's comments (link) with regards to Hatto's notability, such as "As you know well, men are more notable than woman", are problematic. The view that notability must be viewed through a gendered lens, not to mention one that deems the notability of men as greater than that of women, is, at best, incorrect. At worst, it opens every discussion over a woman's notability with the assumption that it must be lower than that of a man's; Hatto's businesses and collections had nothing to do with her husband's academic work—and indeed they arose out of a need to provide for her parents, not his—so why would we include them in his article instead of hers? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic comments are irrelevant here, please stay on topic. That said, saying that man are more notable than woman is not problematic. It is a fact. Or a statement of a problem, one illustrating gender inequality in our content, the very same problem that projects like Women in Red are valiantly trying to address. If women were as notable as man, the only reason our coverage would be unequal would be because we, the editors, are more likely to write about man than woman. And while this may also be the case, the underlying problem is that there are fewer notable women to write about, because our society did not allow (and still does not allow) women to gain as much fame as men (ex. 90%+ of politicians worldwide are men, etc.). But we should never allow our bias inform our actions (including edits). Wikipedia will have fewer articles on women as long as there are fewer sources on women. Bottom line, it is irrelevant that the subject here is a women. The subject is not notable, and their gender is unimportant - they didn't receive coverage nor did anything else to qualify for WP:BIO. PS. I do wonder if the two statements 'women are less notable than men' and 'women are less likely than man to meet notability guideline than men' are the same. In any case, if it helps to alleviate any confusion, I meant the latter (and I believe the former is a simpler way of saying it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just plain time to end Wikipedia initiatives that seek to ignore rules to fix the past and right perceived wrongs. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a place to advance social justice. The very process used in decideing to create this article makes it not NPOV and is alone grounds to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "The very process used in decideing [sic] to create this article makes it not NPOV", Johnpacklambert, what decision-making process are you referring to? You seem to be referencing my own mental state, thoughts, and impressions while creating the article; I hadn't realized that those were so readily available for review. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Three of the references here are articles about her famous husband, Arthur Thomas Hatto. Only one is a write-up from her collection at the Royal Opera House. The page does not satisfy "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, the references about her husband are only used to fill in minor personal details, e.g., the name of their son-in-law. The primary source for the article has nothing to do with her husband, presumably the reason you removed your erroneous statement that "The only two references here are articles about her famous husband, Arthur Thomas Hatto." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're down to one reference to satisfy WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Yoninah, but WP:BIO is clear that more than one reference is not necessarily needed; being included in "the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" is seen as sufficient indicia of notability by itself, for example. The Royal Opera House is a prestigious institutions with an important collection donated by notable people (as mentioned above, at least 13 of 19 donors already have Wikipedia pages). It's significant, it's reliable, and it's independent. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the amount of detail in the Royal Opera bio, it looks as if there must be other sources, probably available from the Royal Opera or from Jane Lutman who donated the collection and now lives in St Albans. Let's keep the article for a few days more until these have been investigated.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Ipigott. Just sent the Royal Opera House an email, and depending on what they say will try to get in touch with Lutman as well. The automated response said that "The ROH Collections is open for enquiries Tuesday to Friday", so a response may be a few days in coming. In the interim, I've added a source on her silversmithing. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am wrong (because I'd prefer for this article to be kept after better sources are found) but the answer is likely going to be 'family archives'. In the meantime, I support keeping this open, pending a reply from ROH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Arthur Thomas Hatto per nom. Fails WP:NBIO WP:GNG. GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2018 (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.