Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendela Bicker

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendela Bicker

[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)

Article is a mix of genealogy and story of meeting her husband. No indication of notability as notability is not WP:INHERITED. As a result fails WP:GNG. As merge would be opposed, moving to AfD. Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Netherlands. Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG because she has an entry in a standard national bibliographic dictionary of the Netherlands, namely the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek. See https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/molh003nieu10_01/molh003nieu10_01_0115.php. She was the spouse of the leader of government at the time. There are several portraits of her. One of her portraits is in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National bibliographic is not a criteria of WP:GNG, it is a criteria for likely notable under WP:NPERSON, but NPERSON does not supersede GNG nor does NPERSON say it is automatic. If her only claim to notability is who she married, then WP:NOTINHERITED applies. And as 90% of the article is about her husband, WP:NOPAGE leans to a redirect so that all relevant information can be found in one place.Slywriter (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough. Her entry in the bibliographic dictionary establishes likely notability. Therefore, I insist that we keep. There is much more to say about her, for example that she was, like it or not, a role model. Romeijn says "she was not especially beautiful, nor smart, but she was a dedicated low-profile housewife who loved her husband and in twelve years of marriage gave him eight children". That was meant as praise. Her correspondence and her cash register of the household provide nonetheless a unique source of information about how the leading statesman lived. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I Think she meets Notablity, she was the spouse of the long-term leader of a influential country, she has several portrait (incl. one by a very famous British Artist), she has a vast family history and is in the Dutch Bibliographic Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being someone's spouse is definitely not grounds for notability given WP:NOTINHERITED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that Logic, none of the First Ladies of any country or Prime Ministerial Spouses. 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is correct, they are not inherently notable because they are spouses - the ones with articles are notable on their own merit because sufficient independant significant sources exist for them to meet WP:GNG. First Lady is a position in it's own right. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and notability is not inherited. Novemberjazz 02:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, she is a historical person in the Dutch history. --Donald1972 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I insist we keep. The article as it stands may be poor but the potential notability of Bicker is firmly established and the article can be significantly improved. I´ll work on it in the next few days. I just added a first new line. Help is welcome.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized my arguments for notability in the lead section of the article. Are you convinced? Slywriter (talk · contribs), Novemberjazz (talk · contribs) and Kj cheetham (talk · contribs)?Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it is not a proper lede and any article needing a lede written that way to justify its existence is a sign that it is not notable. Slywriter (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a lot less lede should be necessary. If you´re still topic of analysis 400 years after your death, Wikipedia needs an article about you. Simple. I guess we´ll have all the time in the world to improve the lede and everything. Thanks for the nomination because it gave me the opportunity to learn more about this fascinating story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under WP:GNG. Article need further work but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:25, 29 July 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.