Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doria Ragland

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 keep. I'm closing this as a SNOW keep, which is valid given the votes and the arguments; there certainly is no consensus to delete. Moreover, this AfD is a giant distraction right now, and closing it does not mean, of course, that we cannot revisit it once the waters have calmed. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doria Ragland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. The sources are tabloids and not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, notability is not inherited. Additionally, material in article is irrelevant. Article is unnecessary, and cannot reasonably be completed, even if there were sources to write an adequate article on this subject. Ronanheathcote 14:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep definitely. This page will receive much more visits than the average Wikipedia page even in the years to come, so deleting it would be purely an action of personal bias, i.e. trying to force your personal opinion that this isn't important on the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.197.25 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable in her own right, but the information should definitely be merged with the Meghan Markle article as this info about her upbringing is not even mentioned there. Whether the information is from tabloids is neither here nor there, they are published sources. 31.54.35.161 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely. People search Wikipedia for information exactly like this, to dig deep into information that cannot be easily found just by googling a name. Thanks. --Grattan33 (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Grattan33[reply]

• Comment Notability is not inherited. The sources are tabloids and not reliable sources. However, there is now a sufficient amount of information, even though it still only focuses on her as the mother of Meghan Markle. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or move content into new article titled something like Family of Meghan Markle. As regards what we have so far, being related to a notable individual does not obviate notability. The claim that the material in the article is irrelevant does not hold for anyone wanting to read about Doria Ragland. In a strict sense the article is unnecessary but then so is the entire Wikipedia (lack of necessity is not a deletion criterion) - remember life on earth continued for quite a long time without any Wikipedia articles. The assertion that the article cannot reasonably be completed is probably not correct either but to see whether there is really enough material for a stand-alone article we would need to check all reliable sources and I suggest that it is very likely that more material will become available over the next few days. Finally, there are reliable sources available now. E.g.:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/15/the-royal-in-laws-meghan-markles-family

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/17/meet-meghan-markles-family-parents-siblings-prince-harry-will/

and a bit more Binging / Googling will turn up more. Greenshed (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update There is now sufficient material, backed by reliable sources, for me to say keep as opposed to keep or merge. Greenshed (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in order to answer the inevitable question "who she?". It looks like more than 1,000 people consulted this page yesterday, so if you think that wikipedia exists, primarily, to inform its users on stuff they want to know about, then that makes the case. But ... would a more detailed and thoughtful entry be a good idea? Yes please. Charles01 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She doesn't meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being the mother of Prince Harry's wife / finance is not "one event." Greenshed (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or move content to a new "Family of Meghan Markle" (or a similarly-named page) per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that "Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" has been created, I still stand by the view that Doria Ragland should have a separate page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete - tabloid stuff. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC

• Comment As I posted above, there are relevant articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph newspapers, neither of which are considered tabloids. Greenshed (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and move some parts of the article to "Family of Meghan Markle". Gharouni ^Talk 02:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED, nothing remarkable about her own life. WWGB (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not really a classic case at all. To quote WP:NOTINHERITED, "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." As noted by Rich Farmbrough above, Doria Ragland easily passes WP:GNG so by virtue of the essay WWGB cited, the article should stay. Greenshed (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough notability for a page. Miss HollyJ (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Move - Agree with WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, too many tabloid sources in the article that provides little information that are fit to be in an encyclopedia. There seems to be some news surrounding Markle's father. I would support a new article titled Family of Meghan Markle where such matters are grouped. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this article is useful for those wishing to find out information about Markle's parents. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is not independently notable. If it were not for her daughter's second marriage, she would not have been in the news. This is entirely comparable to the case of the father of the Duchess of Cambridge, who is also not notable enough for an article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per extensive coverage. Per WP:GNG. Per reliable third party sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The notability guidelines in Wikipedia is a bit rubbish generally, and especially on a topic like this. The fact is, there is a bereft of information specifically about Doria Ragland. Everything supposedly about Doria Ragland seems to be in relation to her daughter, rather than about Doria Ragland 'in her own right'. Wikipedia is full of vanity articles about folk who really do not deserve articles, if most of which are not outright LinkedInesque autobiographies! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case you should be proposing changes to the guidelines. This isn't the right place for that. Danrok (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the repeated argument about WP:NOTINHERITED, which sees to be the only argument for 'delete' simply does not apply here, as per Greenshed and others. Jeppiz (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found this AFD page solely because I wanted to read the article. A marriage is much longer than just the wedding day, she will remain the mother of the Duchess of Sussex, who appears likely to now remain in the public eye on occasion. If the decision is to delete, it could be merged to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only things she's notable for is being the mother of Meghan Markle. As some said: move to larger artcle about her family -- fdewaele, 19 May 2018, 15:32 CET
• Merge--not notable on her own, move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Rhosis I returned your content and struck it out. I see that your edit removing the content said Withdrawing my "Merge"; sadly, with the accusations flying she's going to be hella notable if half of what Megan's sister says is true; shame this family stuff can't be kept within a family
  • I respectfully returned the content and struck it out, as it is better to maintain the history.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There has been enough coverage on the media to make her notable, and she's the first African-American in-law of the British royal family. We already have articles about the relatives of other British princesses so I see no obstacle in having one about Meghan's mother. Keivan.f^Talk 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undoubtedly a person of interest in her own right, for the imemdiate future at least. It is surely a breach of simple commonsense to delete an article which many people are looking to find out informatio about her, not her daughter.Rcb1 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)rcb1[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is not applied if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Clearly she has, a quick search of news articles shows us this. Danrok (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much of the content of the article is not about her but rather about her ancestors and her former husband, therefore the content can be moved to an article about the family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Björn Knutson (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV or merge into article title Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. CookieMonster755✉ 17:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the mother of a the wife of a British duke is notable; however this discussion, an act of futility, could be ended and deleted as hardly notable, not even qualifying as "a tempest in a teapot." (PeacePeace (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Wikipedia seems to be specialising in tempests in teapots today! There are also move requests to move Ragland's daughter and son-in-law's articles back to their pre-marriage names. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is independently-demonstrated by the breadth and depth of significant coverage in multiple WP:RS linked in the article and available from even the most cursory of searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her daughter. Notability is not inherited. She's what, a yoga instructor? Might do a bit on Oprah? Give me a break. Honestly the dad has a better claim to notability as a lighting man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability whatsoever. She received no media coverage prior to her daughter becoming well-known. All the coverage of her since then is about her being Meghan's mother. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. As notable as the day is long (at least this day). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People are wanting to read the article. IMO deleting for lack of notability should be reserved for articles about subjects which people are not interested in (e.g.: high school vanity band). And Ragland being the conduit for African American ancestry into the British royal family is notable to me. Thue (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only news she makes is as the "mother of Meghan Markle." Notability is not accrued to the family of famous people, and that is certainly all that Ragland is notable for. After deletion, a redirect should be created, pointing at the section of Meghan's article that deals with her family. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We don't give people their own articles just because many people want to read about them. If we did, we'd have to create articles about all the non-famous family members of loads of celebrities. Is she even worthy of a redirect? Everyone who wants to read about her will want to read about Meghan. Jim Michael (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If mother of the Duchess of Sussex isn't enough, I don't know what is. David G (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject clearly meets WP:GNG. People want to read about the subject, and many writers have published reliable sources for us to reliably summarize. I wonder if some of the good faith deletion-minded editors might consider whether their opposition really boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough press coverage to ensure notability and people will search for this person. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person is notable for being the first African-American parent of a member of the British royal family. Additionally, this page has been seen by almost 100,000 people in the last few days. This person is clearly is notable enough now (although she might have been relatively unknown previously). Mauro Cicognini (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move No notability on its own, solely known for being the mother of Meghan Markle. The relevant content of this article should be integrated into that of Meghan Marcle before deleting it. --Arbraxan (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a Ragland, of descent from the white, formerly slave-holding, side of the family, this article among other things makes it clear that my ancestors were engaged in acts that I find reprehensible, a fact that must not be forgotten. That Ms. Ragland has achieved such notability through her daughter's marriage into the British royal family, and has carried herself with such poise, makes me proud that her family chose to keep the Ragland name despite its origins. This article establishes a family lineage that should be remembered. Andrew Ragland —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The mother of the Duchess of Sussex deserves an article. Definitely keep. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:COMMONSENSE. The wikipedia article had over 80,000 hits on Friday alone: do we really need to delete one of our most useful articles? Dormskirk (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the number of hits / interest or merge into article title Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; 2nd choice would be to merge into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but she seems to have enough coverage and notability to merit her own article. PamD 09:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as customary for people who receive tabloid coverage, fluff pieces, and subsidiary coverage due to their actually notable relatives. Compare to the children of President Barack Obama, who have press coverage, yet have not done anything that would otherwise warrant them their own encyclopedia article in a rational world (or a professional encyclopedia!). Unless or until she wins the social-work or yoga-instructor equivalent of the Oscars, she shouldn't have her own article. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero notability in her own right. The number of hits is irrelevant - I only looked at the page to see why it existed.Smurfmeister (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Seem to me like most people !voting delete uses WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales. Simply ignoring to mentioning sources, huge amount of hits, etc. BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of current interest has generated plenty of sources, and it can always be merged into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex at a later stage. Bob talk 11:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Notability independently-demonstrated for a page due to significant coverage from numerous third party RS sources which clearly passes GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply here as this isn't applied if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tanbircdq (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too only looked at the page to see why it existed. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep THIS ARTICLE: Doria is now the mother of a British Princess and an African American, History has been created in royal family. Special:Contributions/2606:a000:121a:8049:fc41:e520:3e9:cb08 (talk)
• Keep and expand the content. Maybe later when all the "hoopla" dies down it can be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex, but she is forever notable. 104.3.48.224 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasons. Brocicle (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That she has received a lot of media coverage is irrelevant, because all those articles are about her being Meghan's mother. None of them are about her work, achievements etc. - because she's just an ordinary person whose only reason for being in the public eye is her daughter's relationship with a Royal. If media coverage were sufficient for a non-notable family member of a notable person to have an article, we'd have articles on each of Kim Kardashian's children, Angelina Jolie's children, Beyonce's children etc. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You have now expressed your opinions in two comments and one !vote. We get it.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the content somewhere; Doria Ragland must redirect to the information expected; sources may be a little suspect now, but serious biographies of Meghan Markle will follow. Gtgith (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a week after the royal wedding to determine if this article should be kept or not. As it stands, this is a hot-button issue. Cooler heads should prevail. Wait, see, then decide. Otherwise, relax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.134.78 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added intent for this IP user, so that it correctly appears as an ivote, rather than a decision.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We're here to serve readers, and there can be no doubt that many readers will want to read this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and expand -- even with a page for Meghan's family, Doria Ragland is separately notable (and has received much coverage) as the first person descended from African slaves to be a royal in-law. She participated in the royal wedding -- previously unheard of for a mother of the bride -- likely in part due to this cultural significance. This page has already received tons of traffic and will likely only receive more in the years to come. Proserpine (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to the Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. The argument that this article is the same as the children of Barrack Obama (or Stanley Armour Dunham for that matter) is a strong one. The argument that she herself has done nothing notable, is a poor argument, in that many articles on the wiki are written about people who are notable because of who they are not what they have done. (I would also add that since the wedding she has garnered a degree of notability in her own right (I mean every one writing on this talk page knows who she is)) D A R C 12345 10:44 AM 21/05/2018
• Comment I'd argue a better comparison than 'Children of Barack Obama' is comparisons to other royal family articles, since we're talking about the royals. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's relatives have pages going back generations even though many of them are much less notable by Wikipedia standards than Doria Ragland. Compare Bruce Shand and Rosalind Shand. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's mother also has her own page despite meriting less personal coverage in the media than Ms. Ragland: Carole Middleton. Proserpine (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison! The Duchess of Cornwall WILL become the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms, whether or not she will be styled as 'Queen' at least in the United Kingdom or as 'Queen' generally, whereas the now Duchess of Sussex will not, in all likelihood … furthermore, the 'basic biographical details (and achievements)' of the Shards are extensively documented (complete with their full addresses for contact (or the details of their nominated lawyers in lieu) … and verified) by such books as Debrett's, which documents the British aristocracy so to speak, and their whole lives documented elsewhere … unless, you are in fact proposing to somehow permanently remove the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as well as the Princes and Princess of Cambridge from the line of succession! … We don't even have Doria Ragland's full date of birth, and why not?! Exactly! … and perhaps we should respect the fact that Doris Ragland perhaps in fact personally desires to remain a 'nobody'! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting reasons why Camilla deserves a page, as she certainly does. Her parents are not in and of themselves especially notable, whether or not they are listed in Debrett's, and my point is that Doria Ragland has received more personal attention among the public and in the press than any member of Camilla's family -- or Catherine's mother, who also has a page. The fact that this woman is getting a deletion debate when many other royal relatives have not (including Meghan's father!) is frankly suspicious in its intent. Proserpine (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the reliability of the sources will improve in time and the subject in the article is notable enough to have its own article. Grandia01 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC as there is good detailed coverage such as Good Housekeeping. Note that the page in question has had over 1.5 million readers recently. Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Good Housekeeping', with the greatest of respect, is basically a 40/45-plus women/housewives's magazine (for women hitting menopause but not old enough to collect the over-65 bus pass just yet) … stuff inside are no more reliable than the G2 (Life and Style (Daily Features)) supplement of the actual printed Guardian here in the UK or the Readers' Digest, of whichever edition! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR. With Over 948,000 views on one day alone, 19 May 2018, deletion of this page would not improve the encyclopedia at this time, as many WP:READERS are interested in the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I searched for, and found this article Wizzy…☎ 09:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is not independently notable. Shovon (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge what (little) information there is about her into a related article (either the daughter's or 'family of ..'). 'Deserves an article' isn't a WP rationale - the reader deserves information about the family to be presented in a coherent fashion and there is no indication that Ms Ragland needs a separate article because there is insufficient info about her and because her notability is entirely linked to her daughter and new family-in-law. Deleting the article does not delete the biog info - it simply saves the reader having to go to various articles to access that info. Ms Ragland appears to be a quiet private person - who appeared content with little 'public life' and there is no reason to think that this situation is going to change (the almost inevitable future tabloid gossip aside). Of course she is notable enough to be recorded on WP, but the need to have her own article is very questionable.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with room for improvement. Yes, her notability is due to her daughter's marriage to a royal. But people will explore her heritage and expand it, likely here (for now). Of course by the time her royal nephew-in-law ascends the throne there will have been several royal funerals and she will probably be an elderly grandmother of children with very minor positions of royalty.
• Speedy delete. Clearly not independently notable. Notability is not inherited (and certainly not from offspring whose notability is only derived from their husbands in the first place, or more exactly: from the grandmother of her daughter's husband, to her, in a different country with no royals). Angela Merkel's brother was previously deleted – Merkel is of course a much more powerful, significant, notable and accomplished figure than her daughter who is merely an example of the famous for being famous phenomenon, even more so than Ivanka Trump. Her mother can be mentioned in the Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article, along with e.g. her brother Thomas Markle Jr. who doesn't have his own article either. The only reason her father appears to have an article is the fact that he was once, back in the 80s, nominated for an Emmy. --Tataral (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - 1.5 million of our readers visited this article in the last 3 days. Clearly it is important and valuable to them. She is the subject of multiple in-depth profiles by major publications, and clearly meets GNG,--Pharos (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also this was the sixth most popular article on the English Wikipedia on 19 May. Greenshed (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Article should not be deleted as mother's of other members of the British Royal family have wiki pages, for example e.g. Carole Middleton Mother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has a wiki page, mother of Diana, Princess of Wales has wiki page, Mother and Father of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall have wiki pages. So there is not reason why mother of the Duchess of Sussex should not have a wki page. As previous comment says "1.5 million of our readers visited this article in the past three days". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:E864:A400:839:3C4D:C52E:F7C0 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. All sources pertaining to Doria Ragland that have been cited so far discuss her exclusively with respect to her relationship to Meghan Markle. In contrast with Markle's father, Thomas Markle, an Emmy-winning television crew member, Doria Ragland has no notability in her own right. The biographical information in the current article tells the story of what sounds like a very nice lady, but has nothing to do with her notability as an individual. On the other hand, if included in the "Family of..." article, it would pertain directly to the topic. And there's nothing to prevent 1.5 million people from reading about Doria Ragland if information about her is included in a suitable article.. Obviously, if Ragland goes on to achieve notability in her own right, perhaps as a speaker, author, or activist, or else in her professional field of social work, it would be appropriate for there to be an article on her, discussing that notability. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ragland is personally notable due to the great public interest in her status as the first African-American royal in-law, which is a significant development in African-American history. Publications such as the New York Times have written articles on this fact. An expansion of this article would ideally discuss the historic nature of Ragland's presence in the royal family in more detail, but even without that development of the page yet to date she is more personally notable than almost any other royal mother-in-law in recent memory, including Carole Middleton, Rosalind Shand, etc. Proserpine (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if Harry (the guy who is currently 6th in the line of succession in his country, and who will never ever succeed to any important office) married a Czech woman, her mother and other relatives would also be notable because they were the first Czechs to be related to (a minor member of) the British royal family (whose relevance is comparable to that of Prince Michael of Kent), or something like that? I'm sure Czech newspapers would also write comparable articles in such a situation. --Tataral (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To act as if black African ancestry has the same history among the nobility as Czech ancestry is to be willfully obtuse. This is an important event internationally and intercontinentally. It is important to the history of the British royal family, a major architect and enabler of the African slave trade. British papers are writing about this as much as American ones are. And whether or not Harry is highly placed in the line of succession, due to the international obsession with his mother he is one of the most internationally famous members of the royal family -- as so too will be his wife. Proserpine (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know that in general there is a policy that people shouldn't be given articles if they're only notable for being a relation of someone famous, but in this case there are clearly enough sources about Doria Ragland specifically to pass GNG and make a reasonably well referenced article. Personally I think the policies on inherited notability are too strict, and I'd incline towards ignoring all rules in this instance. This article's presence definitely doesn't diminish Wikipedia in any way, and is clearly of interest to many people. BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information is certainly of interest - but that isn't the same as the need for a separate article. The WP concept of Notability is probably a misnomer - it certainly shouldn't be interpreted as synonymous with 'importance' or 'fame'. The policies are also framed in such a way that there should be sufficient reliable information to write more than a stub (which is what we have at the moment). Why do we know so little about Ms Ragland? Clue, because she - and those close to her - have chosen to keep her private existence private and only the bare outline of her life is known. That bare outline is a fairly remarkable story and is of interest to many. I myself got to the article (and this AfD), because of curiosity about her. What I found was that little more than a paragraph or two about her life was in the public sphere - all of which I already knew. Unless she decides to write, or permit a biography - there is no reason to believe that situation will change. If she has managed to keep herself private in spite of the enormous media interest in her in recent months, what reason is there to believe that will - or even should - change? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point - to me there seems to be a perfectly adequate 'Start class' amount of content on the page, certainly as much as most articles on Wikipedia? Just because there isn't enough information to make an FA doesn't mean it's not worth having an article at all (and if this is a WP policy then I profoundly disagree with it). There are plenty of|unarguably noteworthy historical figures (as an example) about which we have barely enough information for a couple of paragraphs, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having an article about them at all. Fundamentally I just don't understand what the project would gain by removing this article. BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There IS enough info for a start class article, I agree, but for the reader, what is gained by it being on its 'own' page? What about her (of the info available), would be off-topic or inapt on either her daughter's page - or a 'family of' page? We too often (IMO), treat a biog page as though it were some kind of reward for 'significance' or 'importance'. Articles about non-human subjects don't tend to suffer from this tendency - there the question is much more likely to be, 'where does the info fit most comfortably' and is there a perceived need for a seperate article? Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your opinion, whether or not someone is notable enough to have their own page IS something of a value judgment. I think the deletion of this page would be very insulting to a lot of people for whom this woman is a vital new historical figure. For that reason alone I'd say to keep it, but she also meets WP:GNG by every logical standard. Proserpine (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I actually came here to vote delete, but upon rechecking the sources, WP:GNG is met, even if there isn't any indication that this person has done anything of significance. Daask (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move content into new article titled something like Family of Meghan Markle as stated above, example. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I bet Doria Ragland was discussed in just about every household in the world this weekend. It seems crazy not to provide this information on Wikipedia.--Jesswade88 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You greatly overestimate how many people care about a British wedding. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The 90% white male residents of the encyclopedia are marking this historic occasion by trying to erase a woman of color. Not a good look for you, Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Completely irrelevant. No one has said anything about her being a woman of color. Natureium (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very good statement for an Admin. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to feel awful about it tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of commentators have spoken of the subject's status. Here's an example from the New Yorker: The Profound Presence of Doria Ragland "Through her presence, Ragland implied a lineage of black women—and represented the fraught lineage of a nation. It should not be lost on anyone that, despite the pitiful shenanigans of her ex-husband, Thomas Markle, and the gossiping of her ex-step-children, Ragland flew to Heathrow to do what black women do: straighten the mess up. ...". Andrew D. (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that, but the editor was accusing Wikipedians of being racist, not the media. It's the people on this AfD that I was referring to when I said no one has given her race as a reason for deletion. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that racism is generally more subtle than to come straight out and say that the page should be deleted due to someone's race. That said, though, I haven't seen any votes that are concerning or outside the norm for these discussions.

It is seeming to me, based on the votes and the hits so far, that it is unlikely her article content will be deleted outright, but either summarized and merged into the Family article or kept. Either way, someone that want to get some information about Ms. Ragland will be able to get to it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we sexist editors have obviously been napping! Try Michael Middleton, father of a probable future Queen of the UK, then try the mother of that same future Queen! Personally I think both should be 'family of', since anyone wanting to know about 'her mum' probably wants to know about 'her dad'. The implied accusation of racism here, would be a bit more credible if anyone were arguing to delete the information, they aren't. They are almost entirely discussing where the info about Doria Ragland should be in order to be most accessible and for the overall coverage of the family to be most coherent. Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is for Gamaliel to stay retired. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this suggestion. Natureium (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Pincrete's bold !vote was "Delete". That means to remove all the content and its history so that none of it is kept. They go on to talk about merger but don't seem to realise that this requires keeping the content, rather than deleting it. See WP:MAD which explains this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and merge what information there is about her into a related article,(either the daughter's or 'family of ..')", was my vote. I believe (or at least believed) that the "Family of" article did not exist when I posted, but was simply posited as an option. I tend to assume that other editors are actually going to read beyond the bold comment! Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the whole family of The Duchess of Cambridge have article, why the mother of The Duchess of Sussex cn't have one? She is not mother of anybody. She is mother of a member o British Royal Family. I think this is enough to have an article. Minerva97 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge relevant info to her daughter. The lead accurately describes her claim to notability is through her daughter. Notability isn't inherited and all of the information that is notable relates to her daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (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.