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)

I disagree. A topic is or is not notable depending on the depth of coverage it receives in reliable sources. The process of evaluating the depth of coverage is somewhat subjective, I admit, but it is not "a subjective matter" in the way you suggest. The opinions of editors about the importance of a topic, when they are not based on an evaluation of the coverage of the topic in reliable sources, are not relevant. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

erm... but the so-called "depth of coverage within reliable sources" is apparently so shallow that - as I said above - even the intitial paragraphs - which supposedly summarise the subject - mention nothing for which the woman herself is "notable", apart from her birth and death, and the fact she was related to certain other people...
86.25.122.208 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not quite correct, as the discussion below shows. Imlay may not have done much but there is extensive coverage of what she did do. It is not relevant whether we consider what she did (or didn't do) to be significant or interesting – that is a futile exercise in subjectivity. It is relevant, however, that Imlay has received coverage in reliable sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 15 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)

• A number of your assertions here about our guidelines are contradicted in the GNG link I gave you. I have no reason to copy and paste it all here though. In any case, Wikipedia operates by consensus, and there was a clear consensus to keep at the Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mark, I'm not sure if you're aware how kafkaesque your reply sounds: "when people complain about bureaucracy, throw more bureaucracy at them!" --Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Err, you said "the policies need to be revised" and I told you how to go about doing that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 15 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)

I've notified Wadewitz (talk · contribs), the main contributor to this article, about this discussion. Graham87 01:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

An entire book and several articles have been written by well-respected scholars on Fanny Imlay. That establishes notability beyond a shadow of a doubt according to WP:NOTABILITY. Wadewitz (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

but notable for what, other than being related to certain other people ? In a similar vein, there are certain books that look at World War 2 through the viewpoint of named common soldiers. These are invividuals who are not notable because of their own actions, but because they witnessed the actions and decisions of other people around them. It seems Fanny Imlay is "notable" only in the same sense: someone has written a book, choosing to use a more-or-less unknown individual to give a specific structure to a narration of the actions of *other* individuals..
86.25.122.208 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not a question of the person having done or not done specific things, but a question of the quality of reliable sources that can be cited. An inanimate object can be notable if it's been written about in reliable sources, and a president of a country can be non-notable if he hasn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Fanny Imlay is notable, and I won't until someone can do a much better job of summarizing why in the header of this article. But the definition of notability you just gave is a rather odd one. I would have thought a person was notable if their life has some significant cultural or historical impact, rather than because they kept a few scholars employed. Indeed, the criterion you give for "notability" could be rather plausibly restated as "easily and conveniently sourced for Wikipedia." --Yaush (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd though it may seem to you, Wikipedia does define notability as being fundamentally about the availability and presence of reliable sources about the topic. We do have various guidelines which clarify that certain specific accomplishments are more likely to be seen as notable than others — for example, the mayor of a town of 10 people is not all that likely to be seen as sufficiently notable — but on strict policy grounds the only thing that's required for a person to pass our general notability guideline is the availability of quality sources that discuss them in sufficient depth that our article is verifiable. A person can accomplish nothing that seems particularly meaningful or interesting to you, and still be notable enough for inclusion here if there's sufficient evidence that they've been meaningful or important or interesting to a significant number of other people — which is demonstrated by the depth and breadth of sources that are or aren't available about them. Even that dinky little no-horse town's mayor that I mentioned above can still become notable enough for inclusion here if, for example, some famous national writer for some strange reason finds the mayor interesting enough to write a whole book about. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, y'all. Please take this to AfD. I know which way I will vote. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is this source, which seems to discuss the significance of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Victim of Romance: The life and death of Fanny Godwin Women's Writing Volume 13, Issue 3, 2006

• The article is already based substantially on a biography of the subject - an entire book. I could keep adding sources but there is no real need. The sources here covered the criteria for WP:FA. I would like to point out that whether or not the people in this discussion feel that this person is notable or interesting is irrelevant. Scholars think that this person is notable and have written articles and a biography of her. That is all that needs to be said. Wadewitz (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete the following sentence in a maximum of 24 words: "Fanny Imray is notable because..." It isn't enough to say "a scholar decided" she was notable: *Why* did they make that decision ? Because of something she did ? Something she believed ? Something she influenced ? Because her life is symbolic of a specific life-style in a specific era ? The article leaves me no wiser as to *why* someone decided she is notable: instead it tells me about her relatives and acquaintances.
86.25.122.208 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"it isn't enough to say "a scholar decided" she was notable" - actually that is the foundation of notability. That is precisely what we do - rely on experts and outside sources, not our own subjective ideas of notability. Wadewitz (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

BUT *WHY* DID THAT SCHOLAR MAKE THAT DECISION ? There are books and articles about this woman, but for some reason it isn't possible to state in a single phrase *why* those scholars chose to focus on her, other than the fact she had notable relatives ?
86.25.122.208 (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fanny's suicide, at least, is an interesting mystery. Shelley wrote a poem about her, and people who read the poem might want to learn more. Are people really complaining that we have too much history coverage? Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"BUT *WHY* DID THAT SCHOLAR MAKE THAT DECISION ? There are books and articles about this woman, but for some reason it isn't possible to state in a single phrase *why* those scholars chose to focus on her, other than the fact she had notable relatives ?"

Oh. My. God. The IP is obviously someone who's been editing Wikipedia for far too long (or a sock of same, to be more accurate). Someone who's been editing for so long that they have come to believe that Wikipedia policies apply to the real world as well. Someone like the nominator behind this AfD.

I grant that there is something to this sentiment, but honestly ... the notability policy was meant to prevent this sort of second-guessing on our port. We reflect the world; we do not edit it.

We may not understand why enough academics wrote scholarly articles about toilet paper orientation for someone here to be able to write an article about it with copious footnotes. But they did, and all we can do is write the article and get it to GA or FA status. It's ours not to reason why, at least not here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

so anyone with a point of view other than yours is "a sockpuppet" ? How nice. For the record I am someone who reads random articles and normally only makes small corrections to grammar or spelling. In this case, I pointed out that the article content is mostly about people other than Fanny Imrie - she is a bit-player in her own article, and the opening paragraphs do not summarise why she is notable other than being the relative of other, more notable people... Are you going to say I am completely wrong in those two observations ?

For starters, your credibility is seriously undermined by not even getting the name of the subject right despite it being at the top of the page ... once again, it's "Fanny Imlay", not "Imrie." I am glad for the disclosure on your part; in the past it has often turned out that people with these concerns were socks of someone. Daniel Case (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple scholars have written about her. Yet apparently no-one thinks it's possible or worthwhile to summarise any of that material in the opening paragraphs by saying something like: "Fanny Imrie influenced so-and-so, and her early death is symbolic of such-and-such" ? And that any suggestions to do so are somehow evil and abhorrent ?
90.244.136.48 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So, fundamentally then, your complaint is with the article intro, not its existence. I would suggest your comments be focused on that, as it seems others have agreed. Daniel Case (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, I stated that complaint *several* times... and it's only when I misspell the woman's name that anyone actually notices what my complaint actually was ?
90.244.137.125 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's just that this discussion has been framed by editors not only questioning the intro but the entire article's existence (I mean, when someone's gone as far as to start a (snowball closed) AfD, it's not always easy to draw this distinction). Let's work with that. And I apologize for suggesting you were a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And I publicly thank you for your apology. At this point, I think we shake hands and agree to stop cluttering the talk page with this :) ( and in closing, perhaps I do need to set up a named wikipedia account to avoid such situations in future... )
90.244.143.40 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• A ridiculous discussion. She may not have done much, but she was at the centre of a family and circle that have been of intense interest to scholars and the public for two centuries, and effortlessly meets our notability criteria. Nobody complained about Princess Charlotte of Wales (died at 21) being on the main page. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The early death of Princess Charlotte had historic influence... it led to the birth of Queen Victoria.
86.25.122.208 (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can write a substantial, well-referenced article about someone, it is notable under WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. ... If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this person in the sources is substantial. If you think that the guideline sets the bar too low, go to the talk page for WP:NOTE and WP:BIO start a discussion about the guideline there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But the article is not really about her. She's barely mentioned in here. Most of this narrative belongs in William Godwin. —howcheng {chat} 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As an experiment, I copied the article to userspace and deleted every sentence that didn't at least indirectly mention Fanny. About 6,000 characters were deleted, which seems like a lot. (Of course, EVERY featured article contains sentences that don't directly mention the article topic.) There is still substantial material left, however. You can see the diff: [1]

I had been wondering, after reading the above discussion, whether Fanny was really notable (despite the well-known WP:N criteria). After looking over the article the first time, I suspected that I'd be deleting a lot more of it than I did. Looking at my butchered copy, I submit that her notability (beyond her mention in secondary sources) stems from the following:

• Fanny played an integral role in shaping the fortunes of some extremely notable families.
• Fanny's life and well-being were a source of major concern for some extremely notable individuals.

Is she as notable as her parents? No. Did she play a notable role in history? Well... yes. Not Joan-of-Arc notable, but at least Mary Fitton notable, for example. I suggest we offer the usual round of congratulations to those who brought this article up to Featured status and let the matter drop. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So a doting parent's quip about how strong a child is and constant litany of "Fanny was drug around by her famous relatives while they were actually doing stuff" is a significant article? --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, setting up a reductivist reading of the article's content does nothing to help anyone understand the issue. Maybe you should rethink your approach. The article is far more than a quip and a litany.174.237.67.152 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Aylad. By stripping the article of all its accumulated irrelevancies and verbosity, you have discovered the reasons why the subject is, in fact, notable. Could you now do us the kindness of rewriting the header so that the reasons for her notability are made clear to the reader in the first couple of paragraphs? --Yaush (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two questions that need to be answered.

1. Is the subject of the article notable? The criteria here are Wikipedia:Notability (people), which says in part "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." The Invalid criteria section of that page was noted above, but that says in part "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" and there is certainly significant coverage on Fanny (a 297 page book and some articles primarily on her, as well as significant coverage in books on her father, step-father, mother, half-sister, etc.). So the answer is definitely yes, the subject is notable.
2. Does the article meet the Featured Article criteria? Since it passed FAC easily - see here and there has been no serious discussion of even sending it to FAR, the answer is yes.

As for howcheng's complaint, there has to be some background on the Godwin household to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR (plus it is not the the fault of this article that the Godwin article is not a FA / in as good shape). I also thank Aylad for their work showing how much of the article is about Fanny.

If anyone disagrees with me on these two questions, feel free to take this WP:AfD (for notability) or WP:FAR (not a FA)(but note that FAR has to wait until the time needed after a Main Page appearance has passed). For me this is case closed and any other complaints seem to me to be variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

It appears there are only two sides to this discussion: this article sucks and this article is fine no changes needed. We can't help but overstate our points in our anonymity (you buttholes), but all this communication is keeping people from communicating.

• FAC isn't perfect. It's made up of Wikipedians who cannot help but err. Wikipedia's standards change. Sometimes quickly. Because an article passed several years ago does not ensure that the same standards by which it passed would qualify the article today.
• I think folks are missing the point of this discussion. There's no reason to jump to RfD or FAR. There seem to be legitimate concerns that the article does not make clear how Fanny Imlay was important. If the article or parts of the article need to be rewritten to make this clearer, those who are participating here should offer suggestions, and by all means, help with reading and rewriting. Demanding one person do it is not a good approach. This is a collaborative encyclopedia.
• I've had to rewrite leads because people opposed something in them or the lead in its entirety, for various reasons. To make this easier, I made bullet points in talk page discussions to state the barest essentials of what should be covered in the lead. Perhaps that should be done for this article. Although I'm well aware that sources dictate what should be covered and what points are important in an article, how that information is summarized and presented to readers is the topic for this discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather more fundamentally, the discussion (such as it is) is in fact not about quality but about notability. Here there are indeed only two sides: the subject of this article is notable, or she isn't. The question of quality is quite different. Yes, it's a little odd that people should be questioning the notability of an article that has gone through the scrutiny of the FA process, but so be it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I gather from this discussion that readers are genuinely confused as to why Imlay deserves her own article. If the article itself doesn't make that apparent, it should. jbmurray, I don't think this is about notability. Clearly Imlay has sourced material written about her, but the summary of that material in the way it is presented to readers isn't answering the fundamental question of why Imlay deserves her own article. If we just present confused readers here on the talk page with a link to the notability guidelines, that doesn't solve the primary issue of the lack of clarity in the article. It doesn't appear to be a random main page day crank simply trying to be disruptive and trolling. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree a sentence or two added to the one sentence first para to explain why there is so much written about her should deal with the concerns or puzzlement that a number of readers have had. Really it just has to list the people she grew up among and say something about the importance of the circle. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sage advice, Moni. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm supprised everyone's favourate notability test has yet to be proposed; Google search. "Fanny Imlay": a whooping 13,100 results. "Malia Obama": 1,140,000. Enough said. 110.32.140.182 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, more like "page not looked at before typing":

Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Daniel that google hits are not the arbiter of notability, I note that another issue is that she is also known as "Fanny Godwin" and "Fanny Wollstonecraft". Googling those names in quotes gets about 15K g-hits each (though I would imagine some are duplicates as the web page lists more than one name). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanny Imlay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep (under WP:SNOW). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole absurd incident should be archived as speedily as possible. Just embarrassing from Wikipedian viewpoint. CarolMooreDC 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Carol, if you want to archive it, I don't see a problem with that. But I don't see what's embarrassing about this, or to whom? One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it's not reserved to Wikipedia policy experts to take actions or make proposals according to their understanding of the project. I agree with the outcome here, but I don't fault anybody for bringing notability up for discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are nominations for deletions usually archived within a day of being created? 2.103.15.209 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If they're closed as snowball keep/deletes, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Any way to reword this sentence?

Although Mary Wollstonecraft and Gilbert Imlay lived together happily for brief periods before and after the birth of Fanny, Imlay left Wollstonecraft in France in the midst of the French Revolution.

This is the second sentence in the article, and the first time Imlay is used without a first name. In this case, Imlay refers to Gilbert Imlay, not Fanny Imlay, the subject of the article. I think that's going to make readers stumble, although I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 04:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Put 'Gilbert' instead of 'Imlay'? 110.32.140.182 (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was leaning towards, but I think some would consider that too informal. Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Very weak header

Since my chief complaint has been lost in the discussion of notability (or lack thereof), I'm going to break it out here: Perusing the daily Featured Article has been part of my daily routine for some time. Some of the featured articles have not particularly interested me, but until now, none has ever left me scratching my head over why the article was noteworthy.

I'm not going to argue that this is because the subject was not, in fact, notable. I'm going to argue that the header does a terrible job of explaining, in the very first paragraph or two, why Fanny Imlay was notable. The header rambles all over the place without managing to answer that fairly important question. --Yaush (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what you mean, I think you mean "lead" when you write "header". On Wikipedia the lead is the first section and is supposed to be a summary of the whole article - see WP:LEAD. A header is the descriptive phrase for each section or subsection after the lead (so "Very weak header" is the header here - see WP:HEAD). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All of which may be true -- and I'll correct my terminology in the future -- but it doesn't address the problem of a very weak lead. --Yaush (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)