Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 18:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Davy

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, trivial mentions in some writings/books about the broader cult and self-sources.She existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a prominent author on the topic. The nomination language is a copy/paste of language used by the editor to nominate well over a dozen or two dozen Baba pages for deletion at one time, making it a time-consuming task to keep up with this attempt to gut the Wikipedia collection on the topic. I am not a Baba adherent, a member of any organization, not know anyone who is, a statement I feel I must make in my objection to this wholesale topic-cull. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Meher Baba Davy was unquestionably important in this religious movement. I found a couple more sources: one is very substantial, and I added them. However, I don't know much about this movement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Megalibrarygirl:--So, it takes a single newspaper article in a fringe local publication to thrust someone to encyclopedic notability?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but as an important member of a religious movement, she would be notable, Winged Blades of Godric. She obviously figured into the movement pretty heavily and that's what informs my choice. However, a merge or perhaps an article on all of the people who were involved could be a good way to handle the situation. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:--I'm afraid that's not a valid line of argument.As an important member of a religious movement, she ~~would~~ ought be notable would have been a better phrasing but at any case, we're bound by the constrain of significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which ought to be of quality miles higher than the one provided above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:, If it is possibile to shift a bit beyond the scarce reliable sources (serious) issue, into the how best we could still have this infomation availble as part of Wikipedia, a collective article would be a solution, though it would also have to be a topic limited to these figures only and not open to more. An indefinitely growing "list of followers" has already been deleted, BTW. Hoverfish Talk 01:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish: that sounds good. I have no idea how many followers this guy had/has, but it does sound like a lot! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The followers are definitely no topic. In these AfDs we have some of the most relevant of Baba's original close cicle to the Meher-Baba-saga (as WBoG put it). But there is one more issue a collective article would solve. The dynamic of these AfD's (starting with the easier ones and presumably moving on to the "harder ones") also leaves open the possibility that we end up deleting the most relevant figures to the saga (mostly Indian figures who didn't get much attention from the West back then because of racial bias) and keeping only some Westerners due to their fame for some other reason (actress, dancer, film director, etc), which would be a cultural bias issue. Also I see a gender bias issue if the AfD'd mother article goes and the father ends up staying). So if there is an acceptable way for this collective article, the independently notable ones would have an article anyway and the historically close associates could be described in a structured manner. Again, I am not arguing abour RS here. Just a possible way to proceed. Hoverfish Talk 03:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish:--I agree with more or less of what has been said by you but I'm quite skeptical about the prospects of a collective article, for all these concurrent AfDs don't cover a very common locus of topics.I meen to state that how Meher Baba's mother could be merged with his last book and also feature Kitty in the same article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that all of the AfDs should be merged to it, it doesn't make sense. I mean just the figures (the biography articles of his family and close circle) could, not the articles about the book or the terms. Hoverfish Talk 10:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, AFAIS, there's nothing but a prospective of redirect, with (at best) an addition of a single line.Despite disagreeing with Hoverfish, over this entire Meher-Baba-saga, I definitely agree with him, when he says that if we start merging all these information to Meher Baba, the target will be nothing but a heavily-degraded-bloat and will lose it's GA......~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Mandali, per above discussion. Hoverfish Talk 14:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kitty David is not notable enough to warrant her own article. And there is no sense in merging it or redirecting it (as no other article talks about her or should). I agree fully with the AfD on the basis of notability. There are dozens of followers with more notability within the Baba follower community that have no article. So I am for Delete, pure and simple. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. And no redirect page, please. Hoverfish Talk 20:14, 18 May 2018 (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.