 | This page was proposed for deletion by ObRoy (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006. It was contested by Astrotrain (talk · contribs) on 6 December 2006 |
| This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Contested speedy deletion
editThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... here (after markup-stripping) is what CSD A7 (the speedy deletion criterion cited by Ohconfucius) says:
- The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
As I understand it, this is intended for non-articles such as "Joe Bloggs sits next to me in class and makes funny faces and farts a lot." By contrast, this (non-) article claims that (among other, seemingly less important achievements) the biographee set up a website, for which in turn notability is claimed.
As it happens, I think the article's existence is unjustified, but removing it this way seems very likely to trigger bad feelings and time-wasting appeals. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) ... minor correction Hoary (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedic?
editI note that an article on this person was previously deleted via AfD, and that since its odd reappearance it has been turned into a redirect by Ohconfucius and DBD. Since that time the biographee has achieved a few things, but most of the (unsourced) article is about a website and her ancestry. Ancestry doesn't confer notability; and I wonder if the website is notable -- if it is, then it should have an article; if it isn't, then FO's role in it doesn't obviously make her notable.
My own hunch is that this should be redirected where it redirected previously, and that the redirect should be protected to prevent yet another re-creation of the article. (If FO was really thought noteworthy, then a would-be biographer could appeal to WP:DRV.) Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno, it doesn't look very notable to me, and the edit history looks suspiciously like very few individuals with very specific (perhaps even conflicted) interests. Perhaps consult Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts? We've definitely concluded she's non-notable as a Windsor, so she can only be notable if she's notable within the arts world, and I couldn't possibly tell on that count. DBD 14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, DBD. I've asked there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've now also posted the same invitation at WP talk:WikiProject_Business. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- The log of "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" and that of "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" show a histmerge by DrKay; I wonder if DrKay would care to comment on whether this thrice-deleted article should be retained. (Again, I suggest that both "Flora Ogilvy" and "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" should be converted into redirects to "James Ogilvy" [or some part thereof], and then fully protected in order to prevent further time-wasting.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd redirect them if no-one complains in the next few days. I didn't delete the article on the basis of G4 because the content of the recreated article is not the same as the deleted one. But there's nothing wrong with redirection if the subject of the article is not notable themselves but is mentioned at another article. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've redirected them, DrKay, protected the redirects, and added explanatory <!-- comments --> to these redirects. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd redirect them if no-one complains in the next few days. I didn't delete the article on the basis of G4 because the content of the recreated article is not the same as the deleted one. But there's nothing wrong with redirection if the subject of the article is not notable themselves but is mentioned at another article. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- The log of "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" and that of "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" show a histmerge by DrKay; I wonder if DrKay would care to comment on whether this thrice-deleted article should be retained. (Again, I suggest that both "Flora Ogilvy" and "Flora Alexandra Ogilvy" should be converted into redirects to "James Ogilvy" [or some part thereof], and then fully protected in order to prevent further time-wasting.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)