Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Bowes-Lyon (2nd nomination)

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Katherine Bowes-Lyon}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Katherine Bowes-Lyon}})

Non-notable person. Only here because of family connections, but notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The previous nomination was just over 6 years ago and does not include, as far as I can see, anything relating to present policies on notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If current BLP policy is not considered sufficient to justify that then I suggest RfC, but I am sure it is. Notability hardly comes into this one. Ms Bowes-Lyon can never be presumed to have given implied consent to the disclose of the information contained in this article, and there would need to be very strong arguments for including her at all. The one redeeming point is that her current address is not given, but that is presumably only because it could not be confirmed. (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing in the BLP policy suggests that the individual has to give implied consent to the article or its content - indeed if they did, we wouldn't have articles on a number of individuals notable for their notoriety. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::So are you saying that this person is indeed notable? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes. Not for who they are or what they did. The notability arises from the public controversy over the way this lady and her sister were treated, which became a bit of a focus for a group of forgotten elderly. I would not be adverse for all the Bowes-Lyons with learning difficulties to be merged into one article (although a sensible title escapes me at the moment).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::::That sounds like WP:BLP1E to me. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing in the article satisfies WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Although the article could possible be merged with her sister's. There was actually some controversy about the way the British royal family figuratively buried them for many years. Sometimes there can be matters of legitimate public controversy about the treatment of people with serious learning difficulties, which if already widely publicised becomes encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::Are there reliable sources for that controversy? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:::Well here's one example. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1214573/The-Queen-Mother-That-spiteful-old-soak-dedicated-making-lives-hell.html]

::::That seems to be a rather partisan source for the possible existence of a feud between the Queen Mother and Wallis Simpson, which is hardly the same thing. It devotes three sentences to the writer's personal criticism the Queen Mother's attitude to he nieces. Documentation of the controversy would be a source saying things like "there was a controversy over the treatment of X and Y by Z; publications P, Q and R criticised it, opinions poll were A% against it; politicians F,G and H made speeches in the house for or against it ...". Is there anything like that? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::It's hardly a secret that there was a feud between the Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor! Also, "notability is not inherited" is open to interpretation, what has Peter Phillips done that is at all notable apart from being the grandson of the Queen, he doesn't even have a title? PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::None of which addresses the point: is there significant mention in reliable sources for the existence of a "controversy" over the treatment of this person? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is covered in extensive detail in numerous books and other media and so is, by our usual definition, notable. Warden (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::None of which, unfortunately, are cited in the article. Reference [4] is a primary source document about a different person. Reference [3] is a newspaper article about a different person, which devotes all of two sentence to a brief mention of this subject. Reference [2] is about a care home which devotes seven sentences to the subject. Reference [1] is dead but appears to have been an opinion piece. This is not significant coverage. Perhaps CW could add references to some of the numerous books he mentions? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was waiting for further views, but in their absence I will try to carry the discussion along. It is, I think, common ground that Ms Bowes-Lyon is known only by virtue of her medical condition. Her relationship to the royal family is distant, the nature of her condition prevents her from having done anything notable, and WP:NOTINHERITED clearly applies. So the question for Wikipedians is whether a medical condition, on which somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy, should confer notability. Should she be capable of exercising such a claim she would, I think, be entitled to the protection of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights under both domestic and European law. The point about implied consent, which I made above, is that Ms Bowes-Lyon has done nothing to make her condition known nor apparently did her family, and the doctrine of implied consent will, I think, become increasingly important to Wikipedia because it will rely on the fact that a person made supposed facts known by their own deeds or action, or did not take any steps to correct or object to the information, to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Where information is only obtained by breach of trust, which I suspect to be the case here, there is an added difficulty. Added to that, there might be a breach of others' right to privacy in such an instance (it could have been the case here for reasons I will not go into, though the passage of time makes that less of an issue). And can I scotch the idea that there is anything exceptional about this story other than there were at least three related individuals with a similar history? On the contrary, it would have been unusual for them not to go into institutional care. --AJHingston (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - coatracked notability - subject is a private person with a medical condition. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

: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.