Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Henry Curtiss

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus here that the third party coverage establishes the notability of this topic. Closing without prejudice against a merge.  Skomorokh  07:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Henry Curtiss

[edit]
Virginia Henry Curtiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no coverage except upon the death of her two husbands and her own brief obit. Seems to have received only known media articles because she was wife of well known New York figure, August Hecksher. However, notability is not gained by marriage or relationship, per WP:BIO. There was no media coverage apart from these death-related Times articles, nothing upon which to build an article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a stub, and non notable as above. Basically clutter. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

  • Keep When your obituary is in the New York Times, you are notable by Wikipedia standards. The nominator wrote: "no coverage except upon the death of her two husbands" which is inaccurate, the first reference is her own obituary which describes her as a philanthropist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite wrong on a Times obituary being the arbiter of Wikipedia notability, because evidently the Times provided obits of the spouses of prominent people, and in Wikipedia one does not become notable on the basis of relationships. You are quite right that she had a Times obit, and I will correct. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires a claim of notability, which is philanthropist. And it requires reliable sources. Both are covered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was the widow of a wealthy man many years her senior, and headed his foundation after her death. She received no coverage in reliable sources during her lifetime except when her husbands died. The sum total of the reliable sourcing are those brief Times articles. She doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are engaging in original research when you determine why or why not the New York Times publishes an obituary and makes a claim of notability for any individual. All we can go by is that they did publish one, and made a claim of notability in it. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of non-notable people with non-paid obituaries in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule calls for any such thing. having a NYT obituary does not grant automatic WP article. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia rule calls for any such thing. Only significant coverage of her. The obituary already provides her claim to notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again that is purely your opinion. AfDs attempt to obtain consensus on notability. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, once again, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and this isn't a vote. Wikipedia notability says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, one individual user is not the arbiter of notability on WP. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to yourself, yes, I agree. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no definitely you. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the "newspaper of record" the most popular and well known newspaper in the United States finds that this philanthropist was notable, why do volunteer non-journalist wikipedians second guess this?
    She also has an entry in the Yearbook of the Encyclopedia Americana‎ - (Page 345), and was listed three times in the Dictionary of American biography‎[1] Ikip (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I think the Wall Street Journal is the most popular newspaper. The New York Times is number two and USA Today sank to third place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - Seems to be the subject of significant, third-party coverage, thus qualifying for inclusion. This article should be expanded. Ikip's mention of additional sources only confirms my intended keep !vote. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited; the only coverage of her is in the context of her husbands aside from her obit, and obits are poor indicators of notability. The only news sources are the NYT, and we want to see coverage from more than one source. The mentions in the books are fleeting and in the context of her husband, they are not significant coverage. By the way, why are we linking to copyright-breaching material on Richard Arthur Norton's Flickr stream? (ref 1) Fences&Windows 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obituaries in major publications such as The New York Times are amongst the very best indicators of notability. The whole thrust of our guidelines is that we judge notability by whether such independent reliable publications consider subjects notable enough to write about, and an obituary means that the publication has judged that the subject's whole life is worth writing about, rather than just the specific incidents that might appear in news reports. Or have I missed the guideline that says that married women should only be considered to be adjuncts of their husbands? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virginia_Henry_Curtiss&oldid=1138737931"