Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estella Taylor (nom 2)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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: in this AfD there is a larger majority for deletion than in other AfDs for sub-stub biographies just above this entry on the line of royal succession, but I believe this is more due to the randomness of participation rather than because we're getting close to some magical limit on the line of succession where you're no longer automatically notable. We may need a consensus on what point of the line of succession is automatically notable, but it hasn't been found here. No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Estella Taylor[edit]
Speedy delete (CSD A7) As per my comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty) no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear where we draw the line in relation to descendants of royalty. This person is not royal, she does not have the title "Her Royal Highness", or any other title, not even "Lady" or "The Honourable". My own view is that I would be prepared to treat all children and grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, which is a fairly low threshhold of notability, but this person is only a great-great-great-grandchild. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. PatGallacher 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears there was a previous decision to merge so it wouldn't have hurt to have done that, but even merging to 25th in line to the throne is pushing it. An article on those in line to the throne wouldn't be too bad, but they aren't individually notable enough to warrant their own articles Yomanganitalk 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per above. Darn royals. Why didn't they consider how it would affect Wikipedia before deciding on this monarchy system? ;-) Wickethewok 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one isn't even titled, and is too far from the main line to deserve an article simply based on her lineage. Fan-1967 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per other editors. Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the guidelines for nobility are not policy, they're just proposed policy. To claim that nobility are unnotable because they haven't done anything is very POV - the argument can easily be made that being Xth in line for the throne of a country (or 16 countries) easily makes one notable. WilyD 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well i must be about 5 millionth in line for the throne right? Thanks for clarifying that i am notable and worthy of an article. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Realistically speaking, if you can name the exact number in line you are to the throne, I'd be willing to keep the article, as long as it's independantly verifiable. Of course, the real case will be that once you're no longer notable, nobody will know where you are in the sucession. WilyD 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a sarcastic example of how flawed your argument was, heh. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll conceed the sarcasm, but the rest of your argument falls to the indefeatable problem that my argument has no flaw. It also have the wonderful virtue of being a logically fallacy, which doesn't help make it convincing. WilyD 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, you say if i can cite a verifiable source, yet said articles are blatent OR. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll conceed the sarcasm, but the rest of your argument falls to the indefeatable problem that my argument has no flaw. It also have the wonderful virtue of being a logically fallacy, which doesn't help make it convincing. WilyD 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a sarcastic example of how flawed your argument was, heh. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is this 2 year old notable other than her great-great-grandfather was king of England? And if more people remember Albert Einstein than George V of the United Kingdom, then do Al's great-great-granddaughters get articles too? If 20-odd royals bite the dust, perhaps she'll be notable enough with papparazzi all over her, but she's much less notable than Suri Cruise (a redirect to her mother) who doesn't merit an article. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue at hand isn't at all who her parents are - republican sentiment aside - it's the importance of the position she holds. Every Joe Blow and Johnny Nobody who walks around left field for an inning without touching the ball is elidgible for an article under WP:BIO - that's a better comparison. Saying Well, she's less notable that Winston Churchill, or Jesus, so let's delete her is plain foolish. With certain positions or titles, you're encyclopaedic even if you accomplish nothing. For example, anyone who's ever Prime Minister of Canada will get an article, even if they're more forgetable than John Turner. WilyD 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in a similar AFD a few weeks back where I voted the other way, my usual criterion on this one is nth in line to the throne where n < 10. Just seems to me 26th is too far out to count. Even if Windsor Castle collapses during the Queen's birthday party, I have to think there'd be somebody left ahead of this kid. Fan-1967 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Too young and distant from the throne to be notable outside of the family context. 29th and counting??? Harry, William etc, will have a few children, Edward a few too, and before you knw it, Eloise won't even be in the top 40, and Estelle will be one behind. Trees will grow and branches will fall off. Merge with Lady Helen Taylor Ohconfucius 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. My brother in law is a direct descendant of Confucius (male side). Remind me to give him a Wiki entry if this one is kept ;-)[reply]
- If your brother in law is verifiably in line to become Confucius, then why not? Nobody suggests we merge Dave Stieb with Toronto Blue Jays even though he's unknown outside of that context. WilyD 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So just counting british people your saying we should have 5 million nn bios and upwards (of course thats not close to to uk population) and then billions of other countries persons? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already elucidated, if it's verifiable then it's fine. The key criterion of verifiability will cut off the list on it's own. Nobody has the slightest clue where I rank in the line of ascention because I am not notable. Lots of people know where Estella Taylor ranks in the line of ascention because she is notable. WilyD 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As i have stated she is not, she doesnt even hold a title. Being n-th in line isnt criteria and an extremley silly notion. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a highly point of view statement. You may believe this, as do many others, many others do not. But it is a pure value judgement to say her
titleposition is worthless - it's notable, tracked for purposes of ascention, et cetera. WilyD 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Again "!?WHAT TITLE!?" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- title, not Title. Your shouting makes it a hard question to answer. Incidentally, title was a terrible word choice on my part. Better to say positionWilyD 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you on about "shouting" if you want me to shout should i record my message, your failure to even present a title in your reply pretty much clarifys my position. She is just a un-notable child who has done nothing notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What position? She has no position, shes not a princess, queen or lady she is just a child who is in line for the british throne. Which i may remind you so is everybody else. Thus your argument is flawed! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 29th in line to the Canadian Throne, for instance (she does have an impressive collection of positions). She is notably in line for the British Throne, as opposed to people who are unnotably in line (as no one takes note of it. She is a highly notable child that has done nothing notable. She holds a notable position. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing. WilyD 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To suggest so is also POV pushing, so quit it :)! Also that makes every other person highly notable then because there in line for the throne? Look its obvious to me you areant going to provide anyhing useful or concrete to this AfD except repeat she is notable because she n-th in line to the throne so im going to try to refrain from conversing with you anymore. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Notability of a position isn't dependant upon everyone believing the position notable. Since you've ignored most of my argument, it may be hard to grasp. I could easily enough say I don't think actors or actresses are notable but if I went around offering up Jennifer Aniston for deletion saying Just a non-notable actress doing her job, which she happens to be good at, I would be pushing a POV (that actresses shouldn't be more notable that doctors, teachers, whatever). One may wish royalty were unnotable, but they're not. WilyD 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying royalty as a whole isnt notable however this child is not notable, JA has done notable things and had notable things. Can you present me anything notable this child Estella has done? I think not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never claimed that she has done something notable, nor would I. Nor is doing something notable a necessary condition to being someone notable - that's the mindset I'm saying we can't embrace, because it is a point of view, that can be easily enough refuted, and is just a value judgement. WilyD 16:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your forgeting she isnt notable however, also is Suri Cruise notable because he or she was born to famous parents? I think not. If we use your argument everybody born is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not important that she came into her position through parentage. If the order of ascention was decided by lottery, the 29th person in line would be notable. That she gets the position from her parents is incedental. That she has the position is notable. WilyD 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your forgeting she isnt notable however, also is Suri Cruise notable because he or she was born to famous parents? I think not. If we use your argument everybody born is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never claimed that she has done something notable, nor would I. Nor is doing something notable a necessary condition to being someone notable - that's the mindset I'm saying we can't embrace, because it is a point of view, that can be easily enough refuted, and is just a value judgement. WilyD 16:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying royalty as a whole isnt notable however this child is not notable, JA has done notable things and had notable things. Can you present me anything notable this child Estella has done? I think not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Notability of a position isn't dependant upon everyone believing the position notable. Since you've ignored most of my argument, it may be hard to grasp. I could easily enough say I don't think actors or actresses are notable but if I went around offering up Jennifer Aniston for deletion saying Just a non-notable actress doing her job, which she happens to be good at, I would be pushing a POV (that actresses shouldn't be more notable that doctors, teachers, whatever). One may wish royalty were unnotable, but they're not. WilyD 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To suggest so is also POV pushing, so quit it :)! Also that makes every other person highly notable then because there in line for the throne? Look its obvious to me you areant going to provide anyhing useful or concrete to this AfD except repeat she is notable because she n-th in line to the throne so im going to try to refrain from conversing with you anymore. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 29th in line to the Canadian Throne, for instance (she does have an impressive collection of positions). She is notably in line for the British Throne, as opposed to people who are unnotably in line (as no one takes note of it. She is a highly notable child that has done nothing notable. She holds a notable position. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing. WilyD 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- title, not Title. Your shouting makes it a hard question to answer. Incidentally, title was a terrible word choice on my part. Better to say positionWilyD 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again "!?WHAT TITLE!?" Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ◄──────────── Getting kind of tight at the margin ────────────┘
- Which is a highly point of view statement. You may believe this, as do many others, many others do not. But it is a pure value judgement to say her
- This is getting extremley tiresome, every holds that position!! She is no differnt! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may believe that - but it's POV, and one that's not nearly universal (for example, the Queen makes note of where she is in line)- that's the problem with the rational for nomination. WilyD 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it POV? It's fact! Either present a convincing argument.. or dont bother. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already presented such an argument, an explained what distinguishs her from someone who might (in principle) be in line, but where the case is unknown. If the Queen is tracking your position in line, it indicates that the experts in the field judge your position to be notable. WilyD 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt about what the experts in the field of n-th in the line care for, its about whats notable for wikipedia. and im begining to serious believe that you must be one of these "royal expert trackers" as you seem to believe she is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but in the case where we're establishing notability, your opinion of who's notable just doesn't measure up to the expert in the field. For what it's worth, I would guess there's only a single person who tracks the line of ascention, and you could probly verify I'm not that guy (for example, my IP comes from Canada, but I'd guess the guy who tracks this is English). WilyD 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So.. your telling me now all 1000 or so this person tracks are notable just because there in the elite thousand? Comon thats extremley rude. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea how many he tracks - the reference I found had 39, so I'll accept (at the moment) the notability of the top 39. Whether's its "rude" or not I have no idea, nor am I able to fathom why you might find it rude. You'll have to elaborate why, but I'm pretty sure Calling this personal notable is just rude fails as a criterion for deletion under Wikipedia is not censored WilyD 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is rude in the fact that you think it is more notable then any normal person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More notable does not mean better or worse. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to advance your agenda. WilyD 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agenda? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To discount the notability of royalty. Charles Manson is more notable than I am, it's not rude for anyone to observe of as much. WilyD 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agenda? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More notable does not mean better or worse. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to advance your agenda. WilyD 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is rude in the fact that you think it is more notable then any normal person. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea how many he tracks - the reference I found had 39, so I'll accept (at the moment) the notability of the top 39. Whether's its "rude" or not I have no idea, nor am I able to fathom why you might find it rude. You'll have to elaborate why, but I'm pretty sure Calling this personal notable is just rude fails as a criterion for deletion under Wikipedia is not censored WilyD 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So.. your telling me now all 1000 or so this person tracks are notable just because there in the elite thousand? Comon thats extremley rude. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but in the case where we're establishing notability, your opinion of who's notable just doesn't measure up to the expert in the field. For what it's worth, I would guess there's only a single person who tracks the line of ascention, and you could probly verify I'm not that guy (for example, my IP comes from Canada, but I'd guess the guy who tracks this is English). WilyD 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt about what the experts in the field of n-th in the line care for, its about whats notable for wikipedia. and im begining to serious believe that you must be one of these "royal expert trackers" as you seem to believe she is notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already presented such an argument, an explained what distinguishs her from someone who might (in principle) be in line, but where the case is unknown. If the Queen is tracking your position in line, it indicates that the experts in the field judge your position to be notable. WilyD 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it POV? It's fact! Either present a convincing argument.. or dont bother. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ◄──────────── Getting kind of tight again ────────────┘
- You may believe that - but it's POV, and one that's not nearly universal (for example, the Queen makes note of where she is in line)- that's the problem with the rational for nomination. WilyD 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course he is more notable then you, unless of course your a killer to? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, be he's not better than me. Notability doesn't address goodness, or vice versa. WilyD 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said he was better (it is always possible he is) then you, but he is of course more notable then you. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You had complained that it was rude I found Estella Taylor more notable than you - it seemed to me that you must have somewhat equated notability with goodness, which is why I tried to address the issue. WilyD 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never brought goodness into the matter (we must of set a wikiord here "most indented convo") Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but why else would it be rude to find her notable and you not (or maybe you are, I really haven't looked into it)? Anyways, I intented out for legibility. WilyD 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning is that every Britain is in line, so its rude that you find her notable because shes closer then anyone else. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I cut an extreme line at WP:V - which is pretty reasonable - and even said that I might support the five millionth in line notable if it were verifiable. But in all cases of progression, some chop is applied. 2nd tallest guy is likely to have an article, and so on. I'm not sure where one ought to draw the line, but the Queen's website choose 39th, so as far as WP:V goes, that's as far as I can extend it. WilyD 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning is that every Britain is in line, so its rude that you find her notable because shes closer then anyone else. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but why else would it be rude to find her notable and you not (or maybe you are, I really haven't looked into it)? Anyways, I intented out for legibility. WilyD 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never brought goodness into the matter (we must of set a wikiord here "most indented convo") Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You had complained that it was rude I found Estella Taylor more notable than you - it seemed to me that you must have somewhat equated notability with goodness, which is why I tried to address the issue. WilyD 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As i have stated she is not, she doesnt even hold a title. Being n-th in line isnt criteria and an extremley silly notion. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already elucidated, if it's verifiable then it's fine. The key criterion of verifiability will cut off the list on it's own. Nobody has the slightest clue where I rank in the line of ascention because I am not notable. Lots of people know where Estella Taylor ranks in the line of ascention because she is notable. WilyD 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So just counting british people your saying we should have 5 million nn bios and upwards (of course thats not close to to uk population) and then billions of other countries persons? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, Dave Stieb is also notable within the context of Southern Illinois University and the Chicago White Sox. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have reached the wrong AfD, please check and try again. (You sure this is the right AfD) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, I will endevour to choose better examples. Mea Culpa. But I'm sure I could find such an example as I was looking for. Such as Coco Laboy with respect to the Montreal Expos. WilyD 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, Dave Stieb is also notable within the context of Southern Illinois University and the Chicago White Sox. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and failing WP:BIO, zero gnews or gbooks hits. Frankly db-bio CSD A7 material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- she is notable as being in the line of succession to the British throne. Astrotrain 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per my comments on other nominations by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please notable for being in line of succession to the throne Yuckfoo 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—As it stands now, the article is completely unsourced. I presume it is verifiable, but once thoroughly verified there should be no problem keeping it. Ardric47 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I have said previously, there has to be some sort of cut off point beyond which distant relatives of royalty are not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. I previously suggested a cut off point of regarding the grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, but not beyond that. Some people are arguing for inclusion on the grounds that this person is in the line of succession to the British throne. This suggests an alternative cut off point. Fair enough, but I would point out that the verifiable line of succession to the British throne, on the British monarchy website, stops at 39 people, most of the wikipedia article on this subject is original research. PatGallacher 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of rebutable sources on the British Royal Family and their descendants- it is not original research. Astrotrain 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my own comments in the related nomination for Columbus Taylor. RFerreira 21:26, 18 August 2006 (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.