Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:19, 11 February 2007 editGrand Slam 7 (talk | contribs)370 edits Merge and redirect, reminded users to AGF and NPA← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:34, 7 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
<!--Template:Afd top
⚫ :{{la|Druscilla Cotterill}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
⚫ this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. ] 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
⚫ *'''Strong keep'''. Inspiration for one of the most important political speeches in Britain, and which is considered highly notable today; what her life story actually was is highly important in checking whether Powell was reporting accurately, given that he was challenged for distortion. It's not appropriate to include this in Enoch Powell's article, more appropriate to have a separate article. Nss seems to have a personal beef against me from other articles. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


The result was <span id='xfd-closure'>'''Merge''' to ].</span> <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2007-02-17 22:13Z</small></i></span>
:A personal beef? What do you base this on? The fact that *you* repeatedly call me an idiot for very good reason? ] 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


⚫ ===]===
::I'm calling you an idiot because you're being an idiot. EDMs aren't notable? The vote of no confidence of 1979 was an EDM! ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
⚫ :{{la|Druscilla Cotterill}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
⚫ this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. ] 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


⚫ *'''Strong keep'''. Inspiration for one of the most important political speeches in Britain, and which is considered highly notable today; what her life story actually was is highly important in checking whether Powell was reporting accurately, given that he was challenged for distortion. It's not appropriate to include this in Enoch Powell's article, more appropriate to have a separate article. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, that would be a notable EDM, but it doesn't mean all of the thousands of EDMs per year are notable. The 1979 motion of no confidence was notable for bringing down the government, not because it was an EDM. I trust you don't want to add all the other EDMs from 1979 to wikipedia? ] 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


::::No, that's your invention, idiot. I'm not saying all EDMs are notable, but this signatory to this individual EDM is notable because Anne Milton was the first Tory MP to sign it. No comment on others, that's you being an idiot again. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Merge with and redirect to ].''' The person is not particularly notable in her own right, but there should be a section on the page about the speech. --] | ] 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect to ]''' per Grand Slam. --] 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
**I would prefer that ] should be merged and redirected to ] while Druscilla Cotterill remained a separate article. The identification of Cotterill is not unchallenged (although I think it's pretty clear that it was her). However, the Rivers of Blood speech is pretty much inseperable from Enoch Powell's reputation. Incidentally, we don't have anything from the speech on Wikiquote, where I'm an admin. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


*'''Keep'''. Has multiple, non-trivial, media articles about her, so (just) passes ]. They are recent media reports, so likely to increase in number. ] 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please stop abusing me. Saying that just because Milton was the first of a number of Tory MPs to sign (not sponsor, sign) a particular, non-party political motion, already signed by MPs of 2 other parties, and signed by 175 MPs in total, is not notable does not give you the right to call me an idiot. Thank you. ] 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
:But the articles only exist because of Enoch Powell. She has no notability of her own. And the reason for the recent media reports is the information that she was source for the Rivers of Blood speech only emerged recently. Having been covered by the media once, she lacks notability, and she appears to have lived a pretty unremarkable life, and there's little chance of any future information being published about her. It's only that she was discovered (retrospectively) recently that there's any sourcing. If this had been found out 40 years ago she would be a footnote in a history book, just because there's online sources doesn't make her notable. ] 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Cherie Blair is only notable because she is married to Tony Blair (she would not be notable as a barrister), but she has a separate article because she has a life of her own, and because it would unbalance Tony Blair's article to include excessive detail about her. In any case, footnotes in history books often make the basis for very good articles. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::] defines notability in the sense of "attracting notice" not "importance". There was a radio program about her, and a newspaper article, so she has attracted some notice - I'd agree two media pieces is very marginal; though that may increase. My view is that Misplaced Pages is not paper, so accepting marginal articles has little downside providing there is a verifiable neutral-ish source, so if an editor chooses to write a resonable NPOV article on the margins of notability I'm happy to accept it, especially if it keeps the content out of a more mainstream article. ] 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' She herself is not notable, the speech itself is. ] ] 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
*'''Merge with and redirect to ].''' The person is not particularly notable in her own right, but there should be a section on the page about the speech. Also, please ] and ] on this page. For discussion about Fys's conduct, see ], but please keep the discussion here related to the article for deletion.--] | ] 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:34, 7 February 2022

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 Rivers of Blood speech. —Quarl 2007-02-17 22:13Z

Druscilla Cotterill

Druscilla Cotterill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Inspiration for one of the most important political speeches in Britain, and which is considered highly notable today; what her life story actually was is highly important in checking whether Powell was reporting accurately, given that he was challenged for distortion. It's not appropriate to include this in Enoch Powell's article, more appropriate to have a separate article. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But the articles only exist because of Enoch Powell. She has no notability of her own. And the reason for the recent media reports is the information that she was source for the Rivers of Blood speech only emerged recently. Having been covered by the media once, she lacks notability, and she appears to have lived a pretty unremarkable life, and there's little chance of any future information being published about her. It's only that she was discovered (retrospectively) recently that there's any sourcing. If this had been found out 40 years ago she would be a footnote in a history book, just because there's online sources doesn't make her notable. Nssdfdsfds 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cherie Blair is only notable because she is married to Tony Blair (she would not be notable as a barrister), but she has a separate article because she has a life of her own, and because it would unbalance Tony Blair's article to include excessive detail about her. In any case, footnotes in history books often make the basis for very good articles. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Notability defines notability in the sense of "attracting notice" not "importance". There was a radio program about her, and a newspaper article, so she has attracted some notice - I'd agree two media pieces is very marginal; though that may increase. My view is that Misplaced Pages is not paper, so accepting marginal articles has little downside providing there is a verifiable neutral-ish source, so if an editor chooses to write a resonable NPOV article on the margins of notability I'm happy to accept it, especially if it keeps the content out of a more mainstream article. Rwendland 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Druscilla Cotterill: Difference between revisions Add topic