Deletion of Barbara Wilberforce

Comment: Notability is not about the article, per . Quite a bit has been written about her (enough to meet ), but whether a separate article is warranted, or a section in the article about her husband is sufficient, I'm not sure
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTN||WP:GNG)

Comment: As I said above, there is enough to meet , and I also had in mind the argument that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There has been a considerable amount written about Barbara Wilberforce, as Andrew Davidson shows. To assess notability we do not enquire why authors have chosen to write what they did, we simply look for independent, reliable, substantial sources and in this case we do indeed find them. We do not make our own subjective assessments about whether someone is accomplished.  deals with the situation where there has been very little written about a person who has a notable relative – that does not apply here. She outlived her husband and there are sources referring to her particularly strict evangelical views in later life. There is no claim (I hope) that she is notable solely because she was characterised in a film. Editorially it may make sense to merge with the article about William Wilberforce but I think this should only be after talk page discussion, not by AFD mandate. The latter article is a featured article and the editors and FAC assessors may have had good reason to want to limit the amount written about Barbara for stylistic or other reasons. This article about Barbara was created before the article on William was featured so the latter may well have been relying on the links it had thenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Wilberforce&oldid=226351165 to this subject. A discussion here should not risk disadvantaging a featured article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)