Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Bigod

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 delete. The first three !votes seem rather lacking in policy-based weight and clarity, unlike the latter opinions (after the second relist). I see emerging consensus for a possible redirect and will specifically not salt the title to make sure that if an appropriate target is agreed upon, the title can be redirected. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bigod

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

Genealogy-cruft, nothing notable about the woman herself. PatGallacher (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced historical figure. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Judging by its ratings, readers have found the information within the article useful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- quite enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is point of relisting given the debate above? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The second and third keep !votes didn't particularly strike me as being very policy-based. Therefore, the consensus was not clear in my opinion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References, to the extent I can check them, appear to be database listings and short of "in-depth" coverage, which leaves this article technically short of WP:GNG. I'd cut it enough slack to stay over the line were it not for two factors. First, in my experience, the reliability of individual genealogical entries in databases is often overstated, editorial oversight is weak. This creates a WP:V problem. Secondly, and yet confirming the first point, the veracity of of much of what has already been said was called into question 100 years ago based on what one reliable source described as conflicting sources.

"Identity of Isabel Bigod. ... Whatever the cause, the fact remains that Isabel Bigod's parentage is either so recorded as, from the diversity of the statements, to throw doubt upon the reliability thereof, or else she herself is omitted"

White, William (1915). Notes and Queries. Oxford University Press. p. 465. Retrieved 1 February 2013.

As a result, I believe the article is insufficiently verifiable by reliable sources, and that the lack of meeting WP:GNG is not a mere technicality in this case, but reflects a deeper issue with what we really verifiably know about this subject. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does your research include the sources currently used in the article? Any chance those offline sources might satisfy GNG? At the same time, none of the keepers make any claim of meeting GNG either.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the physical sources, what snippets I could find match up-on line don't seem substantial to me, but there is definitely some room for me to be wrong. Even if those references provided substantial coverage, I'd be suspicious of their reliability, however. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Questionable historical provenance is no obstacle to an article. We have one on her near contemporary Robin Hood. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Of course not, if one actually owns up to which things are questionable facts and which aren't. When I look at sources which say this:
Scottish princess and countess of Norfolk. Name variations: Isabel Dunkeld; Isabel Bigod; Isabella. Fl. around 1225; interred at Church of the Black Friars, London; dau. of William I the Lion (b. 1143), king of Scots, and Ermengarde of Beaumont (d. 1234); m. Roger Bigod (c. 1212–1270), 4th earl of Norfolk, May 1225, in Alnwick, Northumberland.

And try and line them up with this article, I find myself a bit lost. Now, certainly, the reference here to Isabel Bigod might be a different Isabel Bigod of the 13th century. "Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages", 2007, via HighBeam research. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-2588811593.html --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has made a claim of notability via GNG, and nobody has vouched for the depth of coverage in the offline sources. The online source found in the discussion is trivial coverage. I am not an expert in this area, so all I can gather is her claim to fame is being someone's daughter or wife (not sure which is more significant). I'd (naively) say to redirect to whoever she is most notable for being related to if notability cannot be established.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTDIR #2 may be relevant to your comment. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR doesn't preclude redirects as I interpret it. Are you of the same thinking?—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I have no concerns with, and would even prefer a redirect if an appropriate topic can be suggested. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to an appropriate topic. Joe Decker's verifiability concerns are convincing. Also, the sources givens seem to be of the genealogical variety, and given that the article does not tell us anything about the person except genealogical information (and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a genealogical database) it appears that there is insufficient in-depth coverage about her as a person in order to pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 11:10, 2 February 2013 (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.