Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gabriella Kingston

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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gabriella Kingston

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article does not satisfy WP:GNG. The notion of people with aristocratic titles being automatically notable is aired at other deletion discussions on the same subject which have resulted in deletion. In previous discussions, it has been noted that inclusion in a Who's Who type publication is relevant but not sufficient to satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. Some aristrocrats are notable for reasons related to their aristocratic status (e.g King Charles 3 of England) but the overwhelming majority are not. Others are notable for reasons unrelated to their nobility (e.g. The First Duke of Wellington). The subject of this article does not satisfy the notability criteria either way. In the first instance because the distance from the English (and other countries') throne is very great (and getting greater); the second instance seems self-evident. Emmentalist (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: News coverage here, here, here, and here (sources already in the article, but the nominator doesn't mention them). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for this, @Ficacia. As you've mentioned the nominator (me), I hope it's helpful to you and others if I provide additional information here. The nomination is as succinct as possible and presumes readers/editors will infer from the content to other WP policies. Specifically, references within media of good WP standing are relevant but not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The media content must introduce material which satisfies WP:GNG in respect of the subject of the article, and this should be referred to in the article itself. The references at the article do not do this. Rather, they do the opposite by referring only to minor social and genealogical matters (see 'genealogy' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC) (Courtesy pinging User:Ficaia) Ovinus (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with the nominator that just having a fancy title shouldn't make you notable Lady Kingston does have sufficient coverage to establish notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ibid Dr vulpes. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable: Wikipedia Library returns 69 hits for "Lady Gabriella Kingston" and 2097 for "Lady Gabriella Windsor". Even in the last week she got plenty of coverage for appearing to faint at the Queen's funeral Piecesofuk (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, all. I think I've managed to create near-unanimity here! My hands are up. I am retiring to a corner of my great hall with a fine bottle of port to think about what I've done. I guess the principle is that if there's enough coverage in decent media outlets, that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG even if the coverage is about trivial details. :-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above she does have enough media coverage. NMasiha (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2022 (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.