Deletion of Katherine Bowes-Lyon (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nothing in the article satisfies . Notability is not inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I was waiting for further views, but in their absence I will try to carry the discussion along. It is, I think, common ground that Ms Bowes-Lyon is known only by virtue of her medical condition. Her relationship to the royal family is distant, the nature of her condition prevents her from having done anything notable, and  clearly applies. So the question for Wikipedians is whether a medical condition, on which somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy, should confer notability. Should she be capable of exercising such a claim she would, I think, be entitled to the protection of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights under both domestic and European law. The point about implied consent, which I made above, is that Ms Bowes-Lyon has done nothing to make her condition known nor apparently did her family, and the doctrine of implied consent will, I think, become increasingly important to Wikipedia because it will rely on the fact that a person made supposed facts known by their own deeds or action, or did not take any steps to correct or object to the information, to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Where information is only obtained by breach of trust, which I suspect to be the case here, there is an added difficulty. Added to that, there might be a breach of others' right to privacy in such an instance (it could have been the case here for reasons I will not go into, though the passage of time makes that less of an issue). And can I scotch the idea that there is anything exceptional about this story other than there were at least three related individuals with a similar history? On the contrary, it would have been unusual for them not to go into institutional care
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)