Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Lancaster

Moved from cleanup. 106 hits on Google for ""nancy lancaster" "sibyl colefax"". Delete. Withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Er, hold on. Google is extremely far from being the be-all and end-all. Do you actually have any good reason to think this article is fake, for instance? - David Gerard 13:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No. I just think it's not notable. Her only claim to fame is being related to Nancy Astor and owning a decorating company. If this is kept, then Tove Torvalds should be an article in itself instead of being part of the Linus Torvalds article, because, hey, if we're giving non-notable people who're related to notable people articles... Sorry if I sound harsh or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the google hits, her biography is available on amazon [1]. I would consider that as an evidence of notability. Andris 02:13, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
• I generally trust google but people/events from pre-WWW days tend to get less hits. And this article is a bio of a person who lived in pre-WWW days, from 1897 to 1994. So, I can't quite accept 106 hits as an evidence that the person was not notable. Keep, unless extra reasoning is provided why this should be deleted. Andris 13:50, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • After researching further, it seems that the company itself turns up only 200 hits on Google despite still being in business. It's mostly cited as inventing the English country-house look, though, so its owner should be somewhat important, and thus I'm withdrawing my vote. I still stand by my original decision to VfD it, if considering the circumstances then. After all, Nancy Astor predates WWW days too, but even she draws 5,000 hits instead of Nancy Lancaster's few hundred (actually it's about a thousand, but most of those are not actually about the Nancy Lancaster in question here). Johnleemk | Talk 10:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: There are genealogists who are dropping insignificant figures on Wikipedia, but this looks pretty clear, well documented, and marginally notable. The question is "tastemaker." The original author should have provided some further justification than that the woman was fashionable. Still, it's a keep for factuality, significance, and clarity. Geogre 15:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If someone's written a 400 page book about her, she's certainly notable enough for an article. Keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 05:23, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Assuming it's accurate (and this doesn't seem to be disputed) then it's a good article, although it does need some work to make it conform to our standard format for biography. Google is not God, as we see again and again. Not convinced by the book, I'd want to know whether it sold, but this is a keep anyway. Andrewa 06:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - the article stands up by itself. - TB 11:25, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)