Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine

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 William Handcock, 1st Viscount Castlemaine. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine

I had previously redirected the article as suggested on WP:Before, however have reverted this after complaints by the article's creator (see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Notability_policy_avoided). Having been only the wife or/and daughter of a peer doesn't meet WP:Notability and further research has produced nothing more to pass it. Phoe (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. Any material on her can be included in the article on her husband. Tryde (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to William Handcock, 1st Viscount Castlemaine. My research revealed this source, which indicates that she passes verifiability from a reliable source (which means we should preserve the content), but one single source is insufficient for notability so she doesn't merit her own article. Therefore she goes in her husband's article; and since she's to be covered there, we need to redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an acceptable solution to me. Tryde (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at many similar articles and reading numerous discussions it seems to me that there is substance to keeping similar articles. Especially if the article is defined further by a tag such as: {{Ireland-peer-stub}}. In addition the wiki link to the word noble gives the word "nobility" and offers info that it 'originally referred to those who were "known" or "notable" ' Daytrivia (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per S Marshall. There's a good spot to include the most notable bits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marshall. There doesn't appear to be any notability independent of her husband, and it's unlikely that any further biographical information exists. RGTraynor 06:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Marshall, all the content is on William_Handcock, 1st Viscount Castlemaine anyway, and there's no indication of notability other than who her parents were and to whom she was married, as indicated in each of their respective articles. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but article needs to be expanded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Note: User:Jeanne Boleyn was invited to this AfD by the article's creator User:Daytrivia [1] Phoe (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She held no posts and had no achievements, there were no noteworthy occurrences in her life besides her marriage, she was childless and had no relations to the court, so by what could the article be expanded?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge Usually I support keeps for peeresses, but I can find no information beyond what's in the article. DGG (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marshall — not notable on her own, but certainly appropriate for mention in William_Handcock, 1st Viscount Castlemaine. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:04, 17 July 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.