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) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 14 May 2012‎ (UTC).

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)

But are the books quoted here about her? Or are they about her famous family and friends and she is mentioned as an aside? Is there interest in HER life or is there interest in the lives of those around her?--Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 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)

I agree with the general sentiment expressed here. Fanny Imlay does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If it weren't for the respect for the person(s)'s who obviously spent a considerable amount of time bringing the article to FA level, I would have nominated it for AfD. Wikipedia has got to do a better job choosing more interesting and/or weightier subjects to feature on the main page. --Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The negative opinions expressed here, as they relate to notability and not the separate issue of what topics to feature on the Main Page, seem to be largely unqualified. Notability is not, and never has been, dependent on the perception by one or more editors that a person has done something significant, worthwhile or interesting. No one has, so far, really and effectively challenged the quality or depth of coverage within reliable sources. It is this, not our personal perceptions of the subject's accomplishments or the interest that her life generates or fails to generate in us, that prove or fail to prove notability. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a subjective matter and therefore is dependent on people's perception. If a large majority of people participating believe it's not notable, then it's probably not. Besides, even if the article barely scrapes past Wikipedia's notability threshold, shouldn't a higher standard be applied to articles featured on the main page? --Zanhe (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the references be about her? The book "Death and the Maidens" was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly as "more of a meditation on the role of all of the women in Byron and Shelley's circle". The other major source of this article, "Mary Wollstonecraft", is a biography of Fanny Imlay's mother. Where are the sources about Imlay herself and not "Imlay-as-adjunct-to-actual-famous-people". HAS anyone written about her in particular? --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly a top quality article--it easily meets the actual featured article and notability criteria. I encourage people here to educate themselves about our policies and guidelines before contributing further. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Earlier someone noted the large number of references as a criterion of notability. If this is truly the rule, is the criterion still met if a large number references are from a mere two sources? Is there no difference between an average of 50 references for 2 sources and an averages of 2 reference from 50 sources? I.e. Imlay is notable to two people. That's not notable.99.22.228.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

If the two people are respected academics, then yes, she actually is notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your attitude sounds like a typical bureaucrat: "Stop complaining without reading our hundreds of pages of policies and guidelines first". You know what, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if existing policies result in an article like this one being featured on the main page, then the policies need to be revised. --Zanhe (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to propose revisions to the WP:Featured Article Criteria then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mark, did you even read some of the responses? User :  AjaxSmack  posted a direct link to the exact policy and guideline that disqualifies Fanny Imlay from having her own article. No revisions are necessary, this clearly violates current policy. At best, Fanny should be mentioned in an Mary Wollstonecraft's article and Mary Shelley's article. 66.60.183.188 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Believe me, I am very familiar with our notability policies, and she meets them. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• How so? She did nothing of note or significance. I quote from the Notability is not inherited: "a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right." I can concede, while disagreeing, that two sources that come from respected academics can count as "significant." However the individual must at least be the primary subject of those two sources from said academics. Imlay does not even have that. I also would not argue the quality of the article. It is well written and detailed article. This argument is on the article's right to exist. It shouldn't. It doesn't follow into the notability guidelines. Even the main source of the article Death and the Maidens has this as part of the synopsis: "Janet Todd's meticulously researched and brilliantly told rendering of this life give fresh and fascinating insight to the Shelley-Byron world even as it draws Fanny out of the shadows of her mother's and sister's stunning careers." The reviews by readers on Amazon.com reiterate similar sentiments. Basically she had an amazing and tragic life in contact with several really important people, however her contributions were not of note which is why she had to be painstakingly researched by Todd, which basically comes off as an "unsung heroes" novel marketed towards a demographic interested in the scandalous real-life adventures of the Pre-Victorian. Please include the passages of the Notability policy that I am missing, since, at your suggestion, I read it and can find nothing that unequivocally gives this article a right to exist and certainly nothing stronger than the arguments for its merging into Imlay's more notable relatives. 66.60.183.188 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of this person. I do not have any idea why she is notable. And, do you know what? After reading the opening of the article, I still have absolutely no idea why she is notable.

Now, it may well be that after I digest the remainder of the article, I will understand that she really deserves her own article. But, at the very least, this article has a totally inadequate opening, because reading the first few paragraphs simply doesn't convey any idea why I or anyone else should care to read the rest of the article.

In other words: I am not going to argue that she is not notable. Rather, I am arguing that the opening of this article stinks, because it fails to explain why she is notable. --Yaush (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just read the whole article, and it feels like reading the summary of a Jane Austen novel, in which Fanny Imlay is a minor character. The article is certainly long and well-referenced, but Imlay plays almost no part in it. There's certainly a lot of drama going on around her life, but what role does she have in these events? Hard to say, really. It seems to me that almost all of the content could be successfully merged to Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin (especially considering how his article has NO content about his family life), not to mention Percy Bysshe Shelley. This article is essentially a neutral coatrack upon which the story of the Godwin family troubles can be hung. —howcheng {chat} 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article looks like it was copy-pasted from a long and tedious biography of her. Propose deletion? 2.103.15.209 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)