Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frainy Bomanji

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 merge to Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. A line or two ought be added but it shall be well-sourced.In light of the sourcing issues, I don't feel comfortable about calling an outright merge and this might be construed as more of a redirect stuff...... (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frainy Bomanji (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)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I can't find independent reliable sources about her to show her notability, so we're left a batch of non RS refs (Daily Mail, a user-generated genealogy site, etc), local media, mentions in passing (articles about her former house being sold, etc) and attempts to show her notability based on other people's notability (her husband Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji, a statue by a notable sculptor that was bequeathed to the town by Bomanji's daughter, vague claims that "she was well known in aristocrat social circles and friends to few members of the Royal family" sourced to a few pictures and a letter of hers, that her portrait was painted by a notable painter who also painted the Queen, etc). The sources just don't support her notability.

After a week of extensive discussions on the article creator's talk page User_talk:PukkaParsi#Lady_Frainy_Bomanji_May_2018 this does not seem to be going anywhere. The creator says he or she can't find better sources online and seems unwilling or unable to attempt the suggested technique of looking in archives or libraries. He or she stated that the family was very private and there isn't much information available and seems to have given up [1]. Bomanji died more than 30 years ago, and her husband more than 80 years ago, so I can understand that there may not be much online.

I'd be happy to withdraw this if we can find some reliable sources that clearly show her notability, but so far all I see is an upper class woman who was well liked in her community. Simply being "Lady Harrowgate", supporting local causes, founding a local society 47 years ago and being president of it for two years, and being made an Honorary Freeman of the Borough doesn't convince me that she is notable. Relatively well-known and liked in her community, yes, but that's not enough. Meters (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. That said, there's some possibility that she has independent notability, but source identification is certainly a challenge. One potentially relevant work is: Gifford, Zerbanoo (2008). The Golden Thread: Asian Experiences of Post-Raj Britain. Pandora Press. ISBN 9780044406051. Unfortunately, I'm only able to access a decidedly inadequate Google snippet from page 38. All in all, I think this is probably better covered at her husband's article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and bold her name and her daughters name. They all seem to have some notability and are probably best covered together. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather odd proposal. We don't bold family members names if they are mentioned in an article. There is no evidence of the daughter's notability, and the mother's article is up for discussion because her notability has not been shown in the article. If she is notable then her article should remain. Please provide the additional reliable sources I requested.

A redirect is fine. We can merge the information that pertains to the husband in some way (the house, maybe even the statue later bequeathed by the daughter, etc) but an already weak article about someone who died in 1937 is not the place to cover another 75 years of family history. Her husband's article should not be used as a WP:coatrack. If the family is notable then we should write an article about the family (but I'm not suggesting that should be done). Meters (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's an obituary of the daughter in the Yorkshire Post, but it would take more than that to make her notable, I think. Deb (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent notability, which is not inherited, as the public notary told me. Alternatively, Merge what is salvageable to Sir Dhunjibhoy Bomanji. And avoid sourcing to the The Daily Mail unless it's absolutely necessary. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 1 June 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.