Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Davina Lewis

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. Even if she doesn't seem notable, the fact is that she has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Several of those sources deal primarily with her, suggesting that her notability is not merely inherited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Davina Lewis

Lady Davina Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable person in the line of succession to the British throne. Has famous relations but by herself, there is very little notable things she has done. This article is mainly about who she is related to and minor trivial detail about individuals close to her. The article even says that "Lady Davina does not carry out official functions, but does attend family events including royal weddings." How is that notable? Thanks. Re5x (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update:Some thoughts to ponder... Please take a long close look at the article and see if what is on it constitutes notability of the person and not of notable events. Check the sources and see if they are reliable... (Daily Mail?...Royal Central???...The Mirror?...Hello Magazine???!!) Most of the present trivial information can be presented elsewhere as I've mentioned... Again what exactly makes her notable (disregarding her relations) This person, as far as I know, remains a private person and receives the occasional mentions because of her status but these mentions in itself don't establish how she is notable. Take away the tabloid sources and I'm not sure what's left that describes the person in detail... --Re5x (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we think she's trivial. The fact is that people follow the royals like a national sport. I might not think she's as notable as someone who discovered cancer, for example, but people are interested in her. Yes, she shows up in rag papers, but she's been reported on since her birth, with coverage over time in papers all over the world, as I and others have established. She passes GNG and no other standard need be met.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I searched, even marrying a part-Maori man and giving her kids Maori names does not appear to have garnered more than minimal press mentions. The sentence about her on her Dad's page is sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a junior member of the world's most renowned reining royal family, a great-granddaughter in the legitimate male-line of George V of the United Kingdom. Her marriage was groundbreaking among European royalty for being the first to a non-White person that required and obtained the Royal Assent, the necessity for that authorization making her a member of a very small class of persons, notable for proximity to the Crown in the Line of succession to the British throne. Events significant in her life are reported in the mainstream media. FactStraight (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment maybe you should include it in the article as it would bring it up to a notable level. NealeFamily (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. FactStraight (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She is indeed a great-granddaughter of a monarch but that fact can be mentioned on her father's article. Just because she needed approval for her marriage does not warrant a whole biography on her as it is already can be seen on the Royal Marriages Act 1772 article. Facts about the so called ground-breaking marriage can be mentioned on that article and/or her father's. Please list these notable events which have garnered nobility wherein it was about her and not events where she happened to be a guest or received a passing mention because of her famous relations. Events notable to her personally and not in the greater scheme of things do not really count (mostly as these are just tabloid-ish filler)... Wikipedia is not a genealogical website and being far in the line of succession does not automatically confer notability. Can you establish her notability by her own right? All I ask is to look at her as her own person...--Re5x (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree largely with FactStraight. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added more news sources. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those sources you've added aren't quite what you'd want to use on a WP:BLP...--Re5x (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources show she is in the public eyes and it shows that people are interested in her the same way people are interested in the Kardashians. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes GNG. Multiple mentions in RS over time are all that is required to meet GNG. She does not have to have done anything to meet WP guidelines; however, her marriage alone is a notable "first". SusunW (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Susun and MLG, clearly notable aristocrat.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing here worth having an article on. All that needs to be said on her can be said in the article on her father. She is 28th in line to the throne, that is not a small number. For me the tipping point is that the article points out she has no official duties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in what you wrote addresses the fact that she passes GNG because of news coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2016 (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.