Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth of Sully

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 William, Count of Sully#Marriage. Daniel (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth of Sully

Elizabeth of Sully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

No evidence of notability. Only passing mentions, apparently died young (21 years old?) and had little time to make an impact. Could be redirected to her father.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I believe Elizabeth is notable. The lady was an Abbess of important abbey. The fact Elizabeth was a noblewoman shouldn't make her notable; as an abbess, Elizabeth had notability. It should be noted that deleting articles about women can't help gender bias on Wikipedia. If others desire deletion, I suggest redirecting the article to this.—Miha (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You helpfully link to the GNG. It doesn't indicate at all that being an abbess is an indication of notability. Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea. As for your final suggestion, that's what I did but which you reverted...

Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I know what I did (in good faith). "Keeping articles about women simply because they are women is a terrible idea." Indeed—just like creating the article because of Elizabeth's parents, who were nobles. I created the article solely Elizabeth was given a position in the abbey; I didnʻt create article about Elizabethʻs brother Raoul, a monk, not an Abbot. To end the game: Iʻll redirect.

• Redirect is the right move, and as it has already been done by article creator, an early close is probably in order. Typed a longer response but it has been edit conflicted and seems pointless now. Abbesses aren't inherently notable (neither are abbots). Agricolae (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really acceptable while an AfD is in progress. I've reverted the redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, not really on, but nonetheless we have a newly-created and barely visited page with only one substantive editor, and even them not willing to defend retention. Agricolae (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or slight merge) to William, Count of Sully, also the article on her mother Agnes of Sully, who is equally NN. However the target article will need a link to Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, Caen, where there ought to be a list of abbesses. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree on Agnes of Sully being NN. (I just did the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, Caen link on the target - no point in waiting for close for something inconsequential. Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I believe the article, improved a bit by a user who added the source, should be kept. Keep.—Miha (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which source established any
  Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I mean, the third and fourth note don't even mention Elisabeth, so it should be the first or the second? In the second source, there is one sentence about Elisabeth, that's it. And in the first source, she doesn't even get a sentence, just a small branch in a family tree.
  Fram (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The 'improvement' was addition of a source that simply gave her name, the fact that she was Abbess, and her death date. That is nowhere near the 'substantial coverage' required by WP:GNG. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Agricolae.What to do, Fram? Will we keep?—Miha (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:PAGEDECIDE. The target will benefit by the addition of the reference for her title and death date. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (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.