Talk:Fanny Imlay

Template:Maintained

Notability

This woman is notable how ? For being a total non-entity compared to her slightly notable relatives ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And I most sertenly agree. 110.32.140.182 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree too pruthvi (talk)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article has 95 references and cites 11 books which cover her. I do not know about you, but Fanny Imlay is much more notable than I am. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But the article itself seems to consist mostly of multiple renditions of: "a member of her family did such-and-such, and she was standing nearby, and she was also around ( though maybe not in the same country ) when a member of her family did something else"...
Even the intitial paragraphs - which supposedly summarise the subject - mention nothing for which the woman herself is "notable", apart from her birth and death...
86.25.122.72 (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to revisit what notability is, or at least the featured criteria. As pointed out, the lead, which should summarize the contents, pretty much says that all she was known for was being related to notable people. No matter how many sources point out that she was related to notable people, that's all she ever was, and notability is not inherited. Looks like a lot a Wikipedian hair-splitting culminating in featuring an article about nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.13.103 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

She obviously received some kind of coverage for this to get to be a featured article (FA) and the article indeed seems to meet the criteria narrowly defined but it still begs the question what this person actually did. Neither the intro nor the text provide clews. I fear that Fanny was a bit like Malia Obama or Euan Blair (both currently deemed unworthy of independent articles per WP:BIO: Invalid criteria); lots of coverage in reliable sources but encyclopedically unnotable. "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". Is this it? —  AjaxSmack  13:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What does notability have to do with what a person did? Interest in her life and sources on her are quite enough. There are currently no books on Malia Obama. Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Good writing must at some point be subject to the quality of its subject matter. And, this article is the most well written pile of boring shit that I have ever read. As for it having 95 references, take a step back and realize that the vast majority of them are from a single source. I might even accuse that this article is a promo for the book that owns these references, were it not for the fact that nothing could possibly market the subject to any appreciable level. If you read the editor's review of the book on Amazon.com, you'll find yourself committing that same act of mindless head scratching as you did when you first read this article, before you came to the talk page in utter disbelief that this article exists, let alone landed in the AF box. Well, at least we're not killing trees to get this article out there. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Without actually picking up one of these references and reading it to be 100% possitive, It looks a lot like all of the references used aren't about Fanny Imlay but about her mother. I am quite sure we could do the exact same thing with Malia Obama if we chose. 66.60.183.188 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)