Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam

Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Attempts to discuss the notability of this person have been either ignored or reverted. The defense for Lady Mabel's notability is based on her title and her political career. At the moment she is the granddaughter/sister of nobility with no title of her own, failing WP:BIO (and that even failed the proposed WP:NOBLE (which also failed)), and also was local politician, again failing WP:BIO Vintagekits 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rotherham council (hardly a bastion of reaction - part of what was once known as the 'People's Republic of South Yorkshire') mentions her here as one of the Rotherham Greats. Personally I think it's interesting that a scion of the nobility ended up as a social worker and running Workers' Educational Association classes. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - local councillors fail WP:N! Then claim that because she was a social worker is notable - what planet are you on? P.S. The "Rotherhams Greats" page also includes Marco who was a bear in a zoo - get a grip of yourself, is this was wiki has slumped to? P.P.S. Just to clarify she didnt run the Workers' Educational Association she ran classes for the Workers' Educational Association in the town of Maltby --Vintagekits 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't want to get into a ping-pong discussion with you Vintagekits, so I'll post this then stop and let others decide between our arguments! The good thing as far as I'm concerned about notability is that we (you, I and other editors) don't have to decide on it. What we need to do if we're editing well is to find citations to reliable secondary sources. The Rotherham Council page cited above is an official page from a local government body. It lists 34 entries of 'Rotherham Greats' from the 20th century. Yes, a stuffed bear is one of them and a ship another! But the other 32 are all noted with apparent affection and respect by the Council. I think Rotherham Council is better placed than you or I to judge notability for a local figure like this (even if I'm typing this ten miles from Rotherham...) I may never have heard of her before today, and you may not like her aristocratic origins, but a reliable external source calls her notable. Over to you for the last word... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All I am saying is that she fails WP:N - that much is obvious and your arguments that she is listed on the Rotherham page is fine but this is wiki, here on wiki we have our own criteria for assessing notability and dont seem to have the same criteria are the local council in Rotherham!.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nominated before. The result was Keep. She was very well known in her day, and just because certain editors aren't aware of that it does not detract from the notability. There are external sources, even though many of them do not, I agree, appear on the internet, unfortunately.--Counter-revolutionary 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, The other AfD was keep because you and your cabal hi-jacked it (they will be along here again soon). Now can you explain per wiki policy why this person is notable. Additonally if there are other off line sources that prove her notability then please feel free to add these - but you cant say that the article should be kept because there are unlisted off line sources - either get the sources or dont! If you are unaware of the criteria that you should be applying here then please read the Politicians section of the Criteria for notability of people--Vintagekits 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really add to your argument to harass and respond to every comment made here, just some advice.--Counter-revolutionary 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion not a vote - if you fail to address the substantive issue and prefer to avoid the notability issue then I have a right (if not a duty) to highlight this.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete*Having taken the advice and read the criteria I can't see where she fits into it.Coeur-sang 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) [1] Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--Vintagekits 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Not having edited the article does not deprive one of the right to comment." [2] Just what was your point Astrotrain re Coeur-sang edit history? -Domer48 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having read the criteria Politicians section of the Criteria for notability of people, Regards --Domer48 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, SqueakBox 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having also just read the Criteria, IMO she does not meet the requirements to be on the site. If we aren't going to follow the requirements is there a point to having them?Maplecelt 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]