Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth of Sully

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.189.242.116 (talk) at 16:53, 18 November 2021 (Elizabeth of Sully: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elizabeth of Sully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Only passing mentions, apparently died young (21 years old?) and had little time to make an impact. Could be redirected to her father. Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Elizabeth is notable. The lady was an Abbess of important abbey. The fact Elizabeth was a noblewoman shouldn't make her notable; as an abbess, Elizabeth had notability. It should be noted that deleting articles about women can't help gender bias on Wikipedia. If others desire deletion, I suggest redirecting the article to this.—Miha (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You helpfully link to the GNG. It doesn't indicate at all that being an abbess is an indication of notability. Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea. As for your final suggestion, that's what I did but which you reverted... Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I did (in good faith). "Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea." Indeed—just like creating the article because of Elizabeth's parents, who were nobles. I created the article solely Elizabeth was given a position in the abbey; I didnʻt create article about Elizabethʻs brother Raoul, a monk, not an Abbot. To end the game: Iʻll redirect.
  • Redirect is the right move, and as it has already been done by article creator, an early close is probably in order. Typed a longer response but it has been edit conflicted and seems pointless now. Abbesses aren't inherently notable (neither are abbots). Agricolae (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really acceptable while an AfD is in progress. I've reverted the redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, not really on, but nonetheless we have a newly-created and barely visited page with only one substantive editor, and even them not willing to defend retention. Agricolae (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree on Agnes of Sully being NN. (I just did the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, Caen link on the target - no point in waiting for close for something inconsequential. Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I believe the article, improved a bit by a user who added the source, should be kept. Keep.—Miha (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 'improvement' was addition of a source that simply gave her name, the fact that she was Abbess, and her death date. That is nowhere near the 'substantial coverage' required by WP:GNG. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Agricolae.What to do, Fram? Will we keep?—Miha (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]