Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara

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

WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play; unless she can be shown to be notable independent of her husband or father, she doesn't get an article. Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if I'm understanding WP:NOTINHERITED correctly, this falls under the exemption of "situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right." —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because? Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the entire system of peerage is built around defining people as notable based on who they're married to or descended from. I may have it wrong, but it's my impression that Wikipedia presumes titled peers to be notable. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Titled peers are presumed to be notable because they've historically passed WP:POLITICIAN. however, she is a titled peer through her marriage and not by dint of ancestry. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The canonical example of the WP:NOTINHERITED exemption is First Lady. I don't see that this case is different in principle, only in degree. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but degree is rather crucial. The First Lady has an active political role. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO: "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", in this case The_Honourable#United_Kingdom. This is not a failure of WP:INHERITED; although the honour was a hereditory one, it was still bestowed upon the subject herself. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasn't. She's a courtesy peer because she's married to someone with an actual title. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, she was born with the title I cited. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Honourable being awarded to any child of a peer, even life peers. You equate this with a well-known and significant award? Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article you linked to also identified it as a courtesy only. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with the obvious proviso that if any notabilty for the subject in her own right is demonstrated, then that should be considered) I would have to agree with Ironholds that the Honourabletitle is just a courtesy title. In addition, even her husbands's title, the Earl of March and Kinrara, is in itself a courtesy title. There is a tradition of the sons of senior peers using a lesser title of the father as a styling, but the actual title resides with the father (in this case thefather-in-law of the subject of this article, so the subject's title is most certainly merely a courtesy styling. (See Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom and a specific mention of the title in List of courtesy titles in the Peerages of the British Isles.) Returning to the subject of this article, it would need to be established that the subject is the subject of coverage in her own right to establish notabilty, either in a particular field or general notability. Apart from a few trivial mentions, not from reliable sources, that say she attended events connected with the Goodwood Estate, I can't find any coverage, although others might be more successful in finding it.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Long-established policy on encyclopædicness. James F. (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The wife of the holder of a courtesy title is not preemptively notable, and there is no independent assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to close this out: I don't have a dog in this fight and the fate of this particular article is not of great interest to me. But the way WP:NOTINHERITED is written implies that this person is to be presumed notable. If it shouldn't, that's fine with me, but it should make it clear why, i.e. which titles are presumed notable and which aren't. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2011 (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.