Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Helena Gibbs

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 no consensus. It was either No consensus or relisting this discussion for another week so I chose NC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Helena Gibbs

[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)

I am having trouble finding in-depth coverage of the subject, as required by our notability criteria. If, as it seems to me, she is only ever mentioned in passing, there should probably be no stand-alone article about her on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought her life was quite interesting, but then this happened. I am now ~~inclining towards~~ delete or redirect. She 'helped' open a children's home and opened a local flower show? These are not things that speak of substantial notability. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) No longer 'inclined' but definite. The insignificant content added to the article appears to demonstrate that she did nothing exceptional. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her marriage to Gibbs received quite a bit of notice, both in England and abroad. I have added the coverage to the page. The later articles about her opening children's homes and local flower shows is an indication of on-going coverage of her role in society. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest: that's routine coverage. It does not qualify as in-depth coverage, not even remotely. Otherwise I am very grateful for your contribution. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throughout her life she was the subject of news coverage. I concur that some recent additions to the page have not helped to improve it (as no doubt the editor hoped to do). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the in-depth coverage? It is one of our notability criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while royalty are no longer automatically notable, she easily passes my longstanding standards. She had lots of independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 7 November 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.