Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margret of Warwick

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margret of Warwick[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability, also evidenced by lack of citations. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability, lack of verifiability. Agricolae (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems relatively clear that she is believed to have existed. To see more, this blog post provides details, and she can be found in genealogical books, such as [1] as the wife of Richard Huddleston. Her husbands (she was also married to a Lancelot Threlkeld) may have been notable (both seem to have been Knights of the Bath), but it would be a challenge to write an article about them. For her, I don't find enough variety of sources that provide a NPOV, NOR view on her life from which to write an encyclopedia article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It might be possible to build an article here. She is discussed here for instance (and there are some sources there). But it is quite borderline notability wise, and with the current article state and lack of sources I'm leaning delete. Seems she is mostly referred to as Margaret Neville.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think genealogical publications like this represent an appropriate indication of notability. Genealogical publications apply a reverse WP:NOTINHERITED: the lone governing criterion for inclusion is the familial connections, nothing independent of them. Had the line being traced in the book gone through Margaret's sister, then it would be the sister who was described and not Margaret. (And I agree, were it to be retained it should be renamed to Margaret Neville.) Agricolae (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the source I mentioned does not establish notability. I do see a few more and I suspect there are sources I do not see - and there might be enough sources out there to scrape by the notability threshold if someone did the legwork. The notability of her father and sister increase the probability of more sources. All that being said - I am still at weak delete.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any sources I consider reliable enough that I am tempted to add her to the article about her father. I don't mind using genealogies for articles about less well researched subjects, but Neville is well researched enough that I don't think such a source improves the page. If you found something, could you add it as a source to his page? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard's Warwick the Kingmaker makes a very brief mention of her, stating of the elder Huddleston, "Richard, his son, was married to Warwick's illegitimate daughter Margaret in 1465, on whom the earl settled lands to the value of over ₤6 per annum in Coverdale." If that's all you get in a 250 pp. book, I think her inclusion in our article would be undue. Complete Peerage has coverage of Richard of similar length to ours, and never mentions her, although being primarily focused on title succession, it tends to ignore even younger sons and legitimate daughters unless they are heiresses, and rarely names out-of-wedlock children. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Margret is listed without a source under issue in the infobox on Richard's page - I would make no complaint if it were removed but if it does remain, perhaps that source could be added. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it was just added there by the same editor who created this page in order to provide a link. That isn't a strong reason for inclusion on Richard's page were this discussion to end in page deletion. I had already made a mental note to revert the change if this AfD closed as delete. (That being said, the quote I gave is from p. 111 in Pollard if you want to add a cite now.) Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a second pass on what I see online. It's all rather iffy. It depends whether the genealogical book is RS for inclusion on Warwick. It seems she is mentioned in at least two recent fiction books - which further muddles online sources.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS? yes. It is more as issue of WP:PROPORTION, and I would want there to be an article-length account of Richard that mentions her, or page-length coverage in a book - otherwise it seems genealogical trivia. Agricolae (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick at most. It seems that she did exist, but is completely NN. The fact that she only got £6 p.a. as a settlement from a man as rich as Warwick says it all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 1 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.