366:
of her husband, nothing that allows for the article subject meeting the general notability guidelines. I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion if there were the things needed to establish notability. An obituary can note accomplishments all day long - if there is nothing from a reliable, unbiased source (obituaries are not unbiased/reliable sources except for things like birth dates/birth places/family relations) that supports and verifies those accomplishments, then we have nothing verifiable. The threshold for inclusion of content in
Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability. The threshold for the inclusion of articles in Knowledge (XXG) is notability. No matter how you slice it, Alicia Nash does not meet those guidelines. Sorry. --
318:- Actually the film is about their life together, the actress that played Alicia Nash won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, the actor that played John did not. You are false, as her life story is well documented in all books about John's life, that are linked on the article, including information about her prominent family and her own life before John. She had her own accomplishments. Feel free to read her obituary if you want to learn about her life. (link)
509:, meets WP:GNG, she's also a respected and accomplished academic even in her husbands shadow. On a side note: User:Winklevi, stop harassing people just because they vote and disagree with you. Seriously, you're acting like a bete noire with your relentless need to battle people just for expressing their opinion. That's not good form, and as this isnt a debate, ergo, neither is it constructive.
217:- in other words, her marital relationship with him. Both Nash and his wife (the article subject) were killed a few days ago in a motor vehicle accident, so it follows that folks are interested in them. Even so, her marriage and death do not merit her an article on her own. She simply doesn't meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. --
1042:: I will support the article for staying. However, the author of this article should add more references from sources prior to 2015. Also, please refrain from unnecessary attacks such as "don't be a tool" or crying misogyny. We are here to have an academic and collegiate discussion. In other words, no personal attacks and assume good faith.
674:, on the basis of significant news coverage about Alicia Nash in her own right. There's no argument that John Nash was far more famous, hence the coverage of the recent car crash headlines with him. But that does not make Alicia Nash a simple appendage of her husband. She was clearly a brilliant and successful individual too.
900:
Although I have !voted keep and given what I believe to be the salient reasons, commentators on the opposite side have likewise only submitted policy-based reasons for their "delete" !votes (mainly INHERIT and accomplishments). I have not sensed any sort of sexism here (having been a victim of it, I
365:
My responses are just that, not "comebacks". Being familiar with the subject is neither here nor there. All one need do is a simple Google search (which I did along with a Yahoo search) and fiund exactly what I stated in my original post here: nothing reliably sourced, nothing notable independent
252:
The film was about Nash's life, not his wife's. If her life story truly were "famous worldwide", there would be reliable sources aplenty documenting her life independent of her marriage to John Nash. The opposite is the case. As far as Nash's notability, he attained his genius and achieved his
332:
The link you provided is to an obituary. If we did articles on everyone who had a lengthy obituary, we'd be here for years going through the list of articles for deletion. An obituary in the NYT (or anywhere) does not establish notability per
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. And the film was about
241:- for obvious reasons. All you have to do is Google "Alicia Nash" Her life story is famous worldwide. A film was made about her life that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Without her John Nash would not be notable, so do not attempt to prove your "Not Inherited" theory.
353:
Your comebacks aren't proving anything besides the fact that you aren't familiar with the subject and refuse to do a Google search or read anything. I posted her obituary from the
Washington Times above that lists her accomplishments. She doesn't need defending.
261:
is not a theory but a
Knowledge (XXG) guideline and policy. I know you created the article and are invested in it, however, article subjects must meet notability guidelines and this one simply does not. That's the plain and simple truth. --
209:. Only sources found that talk about her independent of her husband are unreliable - some admitted "celebrity" gossip sites. Even the PBS reference is from an article about her husband. No notability on her own and pretty much known for
170:
850:. The idea that articles on notable women with more-notable husbands should be deleted or redirected on the basis that coverage is unequally shared is really unfortunate. If that's how people are (mis)reading
720:
780:
605:
I think it's obvious Alicia has her own accomplishments, so the claims of being notable only because she is married to John Nash are laughable. Also, please remember that
Knowledge (XXG) is not Paper
319:
643:
Jack, that was completely uncalled for, and a violation of WP:AGF. This AFD has nothing to do with whether one "likes" an article or not. Please also keep the focus on this article.
760:
123:
740:
966:
equal to her husband's, but that is not the crux of why she is notable enough for an article. Rather, she is extensively covered (as in Nasar's book), thus satisfying
164:
386:
That's nice. When someone writes a movie about you or plays you in a movie or when you die your death is as widely mourned and reported as Alicia, let me know.
401:
I'm dead would be a pretty neat trick, wouldn't it? And just like Alicia Nash, I would fail notability guidelines even if my spouse was the famous one. :-) --
436:
Alicia Nash has attracted public attention and comment. She clearly passes the GNG for the level of coverage provided by her in various published sources.
901:
am sensitive to spotting this) and am increasingly concerned that seeing "misogyny behind every tree" serves only to trivialize the whole matter.
130:
707:
886:
of some editors on
Knowledge (XXG), to delete articles on women, or not include them, is very sad indeed. I see it happen often here.
17:
96:
91:
529:
as notability is not inherited, though she is a plausible search term. WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person
931:
656:
572:
546:
465:
412:
377:
344:
273:
228:
100:
958:
Right. If you read carefully, the response was directed to
HesioneHushabye, who cried misogyny. I don't think there's any
185:
152:
83:
1073:
40:
253:
mathematical and economic knowledge all on his own. Sure, as his wife, she was a support. But that doesn't make for
333:
Nash, an actress portrayed his wife because she was a part of his life - not because she was notable on her own. --
1030:
949:
863:
891:
613:
441:
391:
359:
326:
246:
1010:
851:
258:
206:
625:: Remember, Winklevi doesn't like this article, but claims amongst his/her greatest accomplishments to date is
61:
146:
829:
703:
474:
283:
973:. So, I don't think there's any further need to discuss sexism, as it simply is not a factor here. Thanks!
1052:
634:
514:
1018:
855:
1069:
1026:
945:
859:
812:
525:
214:
142:
36:
1056:
1034:
982:
953:
935:
910:
895:
867:
841:
816:
792:
772:
752:
732:
711:
683:
662:
638:
617:
594:
576:
552:
518:
494:
469:
445:
416:
381:
348:
307:
277:
232:
65:
978:
906:
887:
837:
626:
622:
609:
590:
490:
437:
387:
355:
322:
303:
242:
192:
178:
57:
1021:
does not say that subjects who happen to be related to other people have to pass a higher bar of
928:
694:
650:
569:
540:
462:
409:
374:
341:
270:
225:
1014:
1048:
788:
768:
748:
728:
630:
510:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1068:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
959:
941:
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
808:
87:
1022:
967:
825:
804:
482:
295:
254:
202:
974:
942:
inappropriately unequal results can come from application of putatively neutral guidelines
917:
902:
833:
679:
586:
486:
454:
Where? What links? What reliable sources? What coverage independent of her husband? --
299:
582:
291:
210:
158:
205:. Any notability she had only comes in connection with her husband - and notability is
608:
and separate articles are warranted when enough information is available to have such.
606:
485:
because of sources. There is no need to compare her to her husband's accomplishments.
922:
644:
563:
558:
534:
533:
confers no degree of notability upon that person". WP:NOTNEWS might also apply here.
456:
403:
368:
335:
264:
219:
286:. The film omits much of importance that was in the book (see our own WP section on
784:
764:
744:
724:
585:
that discusses her personally and which pre-dates her death by more than a decade.
117:
79:
71:
675:
287:
282:
It's pointless arguing about the film. Alicia is discussed extensively in
883:
213:: marrying, divorcing, and re-marrying Nobel Laureate and mathematician
828:. She is extensively discussed in sources, the best among these being
920:. The accusation is not only out of line, it's 100% inaccurate. --
397:
Me letting you know someone has written a screenplay about my life
255:
content that meets
Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guidelines
581:
Neither INHERIT nor NOTNEWS apply here, since there is extensive
1062:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
940:
I certainly didn't say anyone is personally sexist; only that
721:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
781:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
294:
material that exists on the subject qualifies her under
113:
109:
105:
177:
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1076:). No further edits should be made to this page.
761:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
8:
779:Note: This debate has been included in the
759:Note: This debate has been included in the
741:list of Science-related deletion discussions
739:Note: This debate has been included in the
719:Note: This debate has been included in the
807:. Coulda, shoulda hadda article years ago.
778:
758:
738:
718:
971:and this article is certain to be kept
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
561:. Thanks for adding that point. --
557:NOTNEWS definitely does apply here,
882:I love your comment Opabinia. The
24:
858:, then one or both needs fixing.
1:
481:, as well. She clearly meets
916:Thank you for saying that,
1093:
962:here. Her accomplishments
1025:. Don't be such a tool.
1065:Please do not modify it.
1057:23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
1035:22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
983:21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
954:21:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
936:14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
911:14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
896:06:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
868:04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
842:13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
817:10:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
793:17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
773:17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
753:17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
733:17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
712:10:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
684:01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
663:21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
639:18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
618:17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
595:13:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
577:17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
553:17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
519:17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
495:13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
477:talks extensively about
470:03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
446:03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
417:16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
382:04:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
349:03:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
308:13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
278:03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
233:03:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
66:23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
201:Article subject fails
691:, clearly meets GNG.
526:John Forbes Nash, Jr.
627:Bobby Kristina Brown
48:The result was
795:
775:
755:
735:
438:John Pack Lambert
1084:
1067:
1027:Le petit fromage
946:Opabinia regalis
934:
925:
860:Opabinia regalis
710:
701:
697:
575:
566:
468:
459:
415:
406:
380:
371:
347:
338:
276:
267:
231:
222:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1074:deletion review
1063:
1011:WP:NOTINHERITED
927:
921:
888:HesioneHushabye
852:WP:NOTINHERITED
699:
693:
692:
623:HesioneHushabye
610:HesioneHushabye
568:
562:
461:
455:
408:
402:
388:HesioneHushabye
373:
367:
356:HesioneHushabye
340:
334:
323:HesioneHushabye
269:
263:
259:"not inherited"
243:HesioneHushabye
224:
218:
207:WP:NOTINHERITED
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1090:
1088:
1079:
1078:
1059:
1044:
1043:
1037:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
871:
870:
845:
819:
803:Clearly meets
797:
796:
776:
756:
736:
715:
714:
686:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
600:
599:
598:
579:
521:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
449:
448:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
313:
312:
311:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
58:David Eppstein
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1089:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1004:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
938:
937:
933:
930:
924:
919:
915:
914:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
846:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
717:
716:
713:
709:
705:
700:Pigsonthewing
696:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
664:
660:
659:
654:
653:
648:
647:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
601:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
578:
574:
571:
565:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
549:
544:
543:
538:
537:
532:
528:
527:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
471:
467:
464:
458:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
418:
414:
411:
405:
400:
396:
395:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
376:
370:
364:
363:
361:
357:
352:
351:
350:
346:
343:
337:
331:
330:
328:
324:
320:
317:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
272:
266:
260:
256:
251:
250:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
227:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1064:
1061:
1049:Birdienest81
1039:
1019:WP:NOTPOLICY
1006:
970:
963:
856:WP:BLPFAMILY
847:
830:Nasar's book
821:
800:
708:Andy's edits
704:Talk to Andy
695:Andy Mabbett
688:
671:
657:
651:
645:
631:JackTheVicar
602:
547:
541:
535:
530:
524:Redirect to
523:
511:JackTheVicar
506:
478:
475:Nasar's book
433:
398:
315:
284:Nasar's book
257:. Further,
238:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
848:Speedy keep
809:E.M.Gregory
165:free images
80:Alicia Nash
72:Alicia Nash
975:Agricola44
918:Agricola44
903:Agricola44
834:Agricola44
587:Agricola44
487:Agricola44
300:Agricola44
288:this topic
1070:talk page
1040:Weak keep
1017:which is
785:• Gene93k
765:• Gene93k
745:• Gene93k
725:• Gene93k
531:in itself
215:John Nash
37:talk page
1072:or in a
1015:WP:ESSAY
884:misogyny
646:Snuggums
559:Snuggums
536:Snuggums
124:View log
39:or in a
960:WP:BIAS
603:Comment
316:Comment
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
54:WP:SNOW
1023:WP:GNG
968:WP:GNG
964:aren't
826:WP:GNG
805:WP:GNG
483:WP:GNG
296:WP:GNG
290:. The
203:WP:GNG
143:Google
101:delete
1013:- an
1009:FFS,
676:Sionk
658:edits
583:WP:RS
548:edits
399:after
292:WP:RS
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1053:talk
1031:talk
1007:Keep
979:talk
950:talk
907:talk
892:talk
864:talk
854:and
838:talk
824:per
822:Keep
813:talk
801:Keep
789:talk
769:talk
749:talk
729:talk
689:Keep
680:talk
672:Keep
652:talk
635:talk
614:talk
591:talk
542:talk
515:talk
507:Keep
491:talk
442:talk
434:Keep
392:talk
360:talk
327:talk
304:talk
247:talk
239:Keep
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
52:per
50:keep
702:);
479:her
193:TWL
122:– (
56:. —
1055:)
1047:--
1033:)
981:)
952:)
944:.
926:●
923:WV
913:.
909:)
894:)
866:)
840:)
832:.
815:)
791:)
783:.
771:)
763:.
751:)
743:.
731:)
723:.
706:;
682:)
661:)
655:/
637:)
629:.
616:)
593:)
567:●
564:WV
551:)
545:/
517:)
493:)
460:●
457:WV
444:)
407:●
404:WV
394:)
372:●
369:WV
362:)
339:●
336:WV
329:)
306:)
298:.
268:●
265:WV
249:)
223:●
220:WV
211:1E
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
1051:(
1029:(
985:.
977:(
948:(
932:✓
929:✉
905:(
890:(
862:(
844:.
836:(
811:(
787:(
767:(
747:(
727:(
698:(
678:(
649:(
633:(
612:(
597:.
589:(
573:✓
570:✉
539:(
513:(
497:.
489:(
466:✓
463:✉
440:(
413:✓
410:✉
390:(
378:✓
375:✉
358:(
345:✓
342:✉
325:(
321:.
310:.
302:(
274:✓
271:✉
245:(
229:✓
226:✉
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.