Talk:Joy Davidman

Shouldn't this biography be under her working name of Joy Davidman? --Wfaxon 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. To today's audience she might be best known as Joy Gresham. We do have Joy Davidman as a longstanding redirect page to here and that might be enough.--T. Anthony 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think it should be under Joy Davidman (the name under which she published), or at least Joy Davidman Gresham. For a moment, I couldn't work out who "Gresham" was in the section on 'Shadowlands'. Myopic Bookworm 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

why does david greshem redirect here? shouldn't it have it's own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.225.148.167 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

there once was an article for david but it got deleted for not being notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.71.121 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I only know of one, but C. S. Lewis may have dedicated a few of his writings to her. Should these be noted in the article? Till We Have Faces is one dedication I know of. --MJB

It says her first husband was a 'divorcée.' Unless he was a she, this is an error. I'd fix it, but I don't know how to edit articles. BubbaRich (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it surprising that there's no section in this article dealing with Joy's literary works themselves: themes, technique, critical response, etc. INeverCry 19:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In the early life section, there is coverage of her work, Letter to a Comrade that she won a very prestigious competition and award for. I found very brief mention of her work in the sources I had. During her time, I know she was an acclaimed poet and writer but her work is not easy to find now. Do you have some material on her poems or books that you can add to the article? If so, that would be really a great addition. Maybe there is more on her Smoke on the Mountain book. I'll see what I can find. Thank you for your work here and your query. Agadant (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be found here or online. I don't know much about her or C. S. Lewis. Looking at this from a GA review angle, I don't see the article passing without direct treatment of her writing. But you never know. ;) INeverCry 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Agadant (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joy Davidman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923234322/http://www.inklings-studies.com/review_csl_chr_tonning_on_d_king.html to http://www.inklings-studies.com/review_csl_chr_tonning_on_d_king.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609182600/http://www.headington.org.uk/oxon/stgiles/tour/west/42.htm to http://www.headington.org.uk/oxon/stgiles/tour/west/42.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you mention the recent novel, "Becoming Mrs. Lewis", by Patti Callahan, among the artistic works involving Davidman. Andrew Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media, http://praxagora.com/andyo/ 12:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOram (talk • contribs)

I regard Douglas Gresham as not being notable enough for a wikipedia page. The reasons are given on the Douglas Gresham talk page. The section above (Title) states that Joy Davidman's other son (David Gresham) had a page that was re-directed here due to lack of notability. I therefore suggest doing the same with Douglas Gresham's page. Bosula (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If there are no objections by the end of October I will go ahead and merge Bosula (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The text from page:Douglas Gresham is now in the newly created section "Son Douglas Gresham". Bosula (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion Douglas Gresham is not notable enough to merit a wikipedia page. I therefore suggest it be merged into Joy Davidman. His achievements as written in the Douglas Greshem page are as follows.

Son of Joy Davidman and stepson of C.S. Lewis. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)§Family “Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person.”

Radio. He hosted a radio adaptation of the Narnia Chronicles on a Christian radio station. I understand this to mean he introduced the radio plays. This is a small job and not notable.

Cameo Roles. Two cameo roles do not confer notability.

Coproducer. Netflix made him co-producer of the Narnia chronicles at 79 years of age, with no film experience. We can safely assume this has more to do with him owning the copyright, than with his talent or achievements. Bosula (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If there are no objections by the end of October I will go ahead and merge. Bosula (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the page. In my view, notability is obvious. Certainly the page should never have been merged without an AfD discussion. Netwalker3 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So far neither Netwalker3 nor anyone else has questioned the four points I made about lack of notability. I cited Wikipedia:Notability (people)§Family with these points. Netwalker3 cited their own opinion. I called for discussion (for 17 days), as required by WP:merge, before merging. Netwalker3 reverted without discussion.

Netwalker3 wrote on my mentor's page "that Douglas Gresham passes WP:AUTHOR, just for the books he has written, never mind his work on the Narnia movies". WP:AUTHOR lists 4 criteria for notability. Can Netwalker3 say which of these applies to Douglas Gresham? I cannot see that any of them apply. And a rebuttal of the 4 points I made, including the one about his movies, is needed for Douglas Gresham to gain notability. Bosula (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the relevant WP policies. I stand by what I said: the appropriate way to hold deletion discussions is WP:AFD. Netwalker3 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:merging is what happened; not WP:deletion process. I followed the instructions to the letter. Can we remain with the WP:notability issue? Bosula (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. If there are no claims for notability compatible with WP:notability, I will (re-)merge in 7 days on 21st December. Bosula (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Netwalker3: Notifying previous participant of this reopened merge discussion. Rgds Squawk7700 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Netwalker3 I don't see what is obvious about the notability here. His stepson didn't write books, it seem to be autobiographies of C.S. Lewis which isn't much to stand alone as an article. – The Grid (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Douglas Gresham wrote books. The fact that those books are biographies of his stepfather does not make them less notable.

And Douglas Gresham is also notable for his role as a kind of 'gatekeeper' for the Lewis legacy. There are numerous secondary sources about that. - Netwalker3 (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. Anyone who owns the rights, in this case through inheritance, is automatically a gatekeeper. Bosula (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I see absolutely no point in merging Douglas Gresham article with Joy Davidson. Moving content from that article to this one will overwhelm and provide undue weight for its own subject. That article is perfectly fine as it is. References to subject being a producer , representation in films, plays and books, Shadowlands (1985), Shadowlands (1993), Lenten Lands: My Childhood with Joy Davidman and C.S. Lewis, Jack's Life: The Life Story of C.S. Lewis, among other credits and writings . Subject most definitely passes GNG. Oppose merge. I have posted at Douglas Gresham Merge Proposal.Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge, for similar reasons. - Netwalker3 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Maineartists that Joy Davidman's page must not be burdened by details from Douglas's life, that in the big picture of her life are uninteresting . However this must be done by pruning, rather than inflating Douglas's notability. Son David's page was pruned into non-existence after it was merged here. I don't approve of going this far with Douglas's info, whose books are of interest to those investigating Davidman's life. But notability must be judged according to Wikipedia's criteria, not according to what we find convenient. Maineartists mentions producer, rather than co-producer, the significance of which I have referred to above; also his books which are not in keeping with any of the 4 criteria in WP:AUTHOR; the citation to his credits and writings [2] refers to son David and not Douglas. Bosula (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Why? Who is saying this must be done? It seems that this is being done by only you. I cannot see any other editor bringing forth these claims for merging, pruning, etc. I see absolutely no point in what has occurred thus far by adding an entire section to this article here: or "pruning" notability at Gresham. The "merge" had not been voted on or approved by consensus. It should have never happened. The two articles were and are fine the way they are IMHO. As for WP:AUTHOR. Gresham's work Lenten Lands stands alone as a significant work. Sorry, but there seems to be a sole campaign to either discredit or disprove notability of Gresham that is not in keeping with other editors here at WP. I also disagree that Gresham does not meet at least one criteria at WP:AUTHOR for Lenten Lands and his work in "co-producing" Narnia series. I do not agree with what you are trying to accomplish here; and in doing so, vote to remove your premature attempt at merging without proper means of consensus. The section David Gresham should be removed. It is confusing, and sets up future entangled messes in trying to keep two articles separate. Maineartists (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. Let me put it like this. If the consensus is to merge, then the point you made "overwhelm and provide undue weight" must be dealt with. Prune, cut, delete, simplify. Use whatever term you like, but it would have to be done. That is not a controversial statement. If the avoidance of overwhelming Davidman's page is used as an argument to leave things be, then I must disagree. You make a point about notability, which I will answer below. Bosula (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Award: CAMIE Awards & List of accolades received by The Chronicles of Narnia film series (listed by name). "Co-producer" or not, the BLP won the award. Every time a claim is made about notability, a personal opinion is shared: "I don't see what is obvious about the notability here. His stepson didn't write books, it seem to be autobiographies of C.S. Lewis which isn't much to stand alone as an article." This is not for you to decide but RS and significant coverage. You seem to be trying to apply ALL 4 criteria for the category of AUTHOR for this one BLP. Gresham meets GNG notability for a stand-alone article. It would seem that nothing that is said or shown will change your mind. We are not here to change your mind. The ONUS is on you to merge, and that has not been proven or shown a need. Any biography criteria: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Gresham has done this not only in the life of C.S. Lewis (not just by being his step-son but by his contributions which can be seen in references, see also, notes etc on the relative page) and his significant contributions to the Narnia works both in film and on-stage: Shadowlands, and various productions of CS Lewis works: . Lenten Lands alone has been called: "the ultimate insider's perspective on the home life of CS" . Interest still lay with Douglas: An Untold Tragedy: Douglas Gresham and C.S. Lewis’s Final Years. What did Christopher Robin Milne do to deserve a stand-alone article? Descendants of the Mozart family? Gresham has accomplished far more. Maineartists (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  By the way it was another editor that wrote "I don't see what is obvious...". That makes two who do not find notability. Let us see who else comments. And in my opinion we must focus on the details of WP:notability, as I did at the beginning and still try to do. The film series is without doubt notable. A cameo role in it is not. One criterion at WP:AUTHOR is enough. It does not need all four. WP:AUTHOR uses "or" not "and". You write "In Lenten Lands" is a significant work, presumably calling on criterion 3 in WP:AUTHOR. I am happy to focus on that. However "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". You cite the blog of an individual. Are there any reviews in a newspaper? I could not find any. You write "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" and cite the blog of an individual. Where is the wide recognition (outside of his Wikipedia page). I agree about the Mozart family and Christopher Robin Milne. No doubt there are many non-notables with pages. You suggest I am ignoring your claims, but I am happy to focus on any claim and evaluate it according to WP:notability. Bosula (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Outside of his Wikipedia page? Come on, now. Your constant and continued mission to acknowledge and dismiss is getting tiresome. Nothing that is presented to you will meet your approval. SIGCOV: , , , , , , , , , , , , , NYT , , , . I will say this again: BLP passes WP:GNG. Period. Maineartists (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• It would seem to me that in your quest to apply notability to Douglas Gresham, you have muddled your original proposal for "merging". Either you are challenging notability for a separate article (Douglas Gresham), which should be placed up for AfD; or you need to accept notability and stick with your initial request to "merge" - which, already has been shown to dominate this article and provide undue weight for a subject that requires a stand alone article. Gresham should not be merged with this article. Why are we discussing notability here? Either placed Gresham up for AfD there or remove the merge proposal from this article here. The two are not connected. We are losing sight with all this notability of a separate BLP with your reason to post here: merge. Maineartists (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  If Douglas Gresham is not notable enough for a standalone page, then the page should be either deleted or merged. Is there a forum "deleted or merged, which is more appropriate"? I don't think so. So we have to go for one or the other. As I wrote above Gresham's book would be of interest to scholars interested in Joy Davidman. That is why I suggested WP:merge rather than WP:delete. As I wrote above, of course much of the info on Gresham's page is of little interest and would have to be removed in order not to provide undue weight, as was done when Gresham's brother's page was merged here into Davidman's, So it is possible to merge without burdening Davidman's page. However if deletion is a better solution then I would agree to that. Hopefully this is now clear enough that we can focus on the matter at hand rather than on my state of mind. Bosula (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps I have been misunderstanding you. Are you saying that with WP:GNG, we do not need to evaluate his achievements, but that his repeated appearance in the media is enough to give him notability? Bosula (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• If a subject passes any guideline of notability, GNG included (which has 5), then their achievements have already been evaluated & reviewed, obviously. But this BLP has other achievements more than just GNG. I am just stating at the very least, they pass GNG. Which if placed up for AfD, is a reason for KEEP. That isn't the case here. But I digress, this thread was started based on one request only: to merge Gresham with Davidman. To merge, one must comply with one of 5 reasons found within the WP:MERGE guidelines. This proposed merge does not fall under: Duplicate, Overlap, Short text or Context. The only challenge you have brought here is No. 4: Insufficient notability which at the very least can be based solely on WP:GNG. The guideline then goes on to say: Merging should be avoided if - the resulting article would be too long or "clunky" (which it has already been shown to be in this situation) and the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles (which this proves to be since the Gresham article is discussed / mentioned / linked presently across WP more than 50 times as a standalone subject / article.) The BLP passes GNG. There is no debating this. And once again, your mission to continually diminish ("repeated appearance in the media") which would allow other BLPs standalone articles and notability inclusion at WP via GNG is something I wish not to further engage in. They are not "trivial" or "mere mentions". It falls under No 2 in GNG found in Reliable No 3 Sources No 4. That being said, from his accomplishments, Gresham additionally falls under separate individual categories for notability for achievements already named above. I am through debating notability. The original request in this thread was: Merge. If you still feel notability is the root of your claim, then place the other article up for AfD. If it fails, most likely the result will be to merge with this article. That's how AfDs usually go. However, if it passes, the merge is moot. To address your statement regarding another editor "who [does] not find notability, this is without merit. There are authors at WP who are notable for only writing one book. The definition of author is: the creator or originator of any written work, such as a book, article, or play. Their statement is not based in fact on the subject or BLP - and - 2. It does not take into consideration the other achievements that do grant notability. Maineartists (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to answer so fully. As you may have gathered I have never edited a BLP page. My WP edits until now have been solely in the area of science, where I used WP:merging several times because of redundancy. I came across the Gresham page from the link on Joy Davidman’s page after reading Nicholson’s play. I was very surprised to find there was such a page. I assumed and still assume that visitors to that page get there through the connection with his mother and his famous stepfather. Similarly, I suspect that people reporting details of Gresham’s life on that page are motivated by the same interest in his mother and stepfather. So disapproving of what I view to be a family cult, I started what we may both validly refer to as a mission. I checked WP:notability (persons), went through the criteria there and made the list of what I consider to be his lack of notability. The only issue is notability, nothing else. I interpreted WP:GNG as a measure of celebrity, although that word is not used in the guidelines, and it never occured to me for a moment to consider Gresham to be a celebrity, which is why I was so slow on the uptake, which I apologise for. But my own opinion is irrelevant here. We need to evaluate the sources. I am inclined on the one hand to bow to your experience here and leave the thing alone. It is after all a minor matter, and almost no-one has been interested enough to offer a judgement. However, I still subjectively don’t consider Gresham to be a celebrity, despite your collection of references. The links to his page are nearly all due to the C.S. Lewis template at the bottom of the pages of his works etc. The list of references you provided refer to two aspects, firstly his christianity, and secondly his ownership of C.S. Lewis Company, neither of which is mentioned on his actual WP page. So does that count? You are obviously more experienced than me in BLP and judge that level of reference to him in the sources as more than adequate. Possibly you are right. Even C.S. Lewis’s deceased gardener Fred Paxford has a page, which in my personal view is ridiculous. I regret not going straight for AfD, as you suggest I should have done, and should now do if I want to continue in my mission. I’ll consider it. Thanks again for your patience. Bosula (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not here to continually teach how to edit BLP (or any WP) articles. Nor am I here to sway anyone from their personal beliefs in spite of reliable sources backing notability. Take your mission to AfD. As for this page and Gresham's I am removing your request to merge. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It will be good to have enough editors to have a good discussion. It might end up in a merge. Bosula (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)