601:. 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)
629:
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
271:
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
242:
You're quite wrong on a Times obituary being the arbiter of
Knowledge notability, because evidently the Times provided obits of the spouses of prominent people, and in Knowledge one does not become notable on the basis of relationships. You are quite right that she had a Times obit, and I will
456:
And of course, once again, Knowledge isn't a democracy and this isn't a vote. Knowledge 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."
184:
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
290:
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.
225:
When your obituary is in the New York Times, you are notable by
Knowledge 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.
153:
630:
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?
581:- 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.
530:
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?
147:
114:
537:
404:
most of the references verify details of her life like birth and marriage, there needs to be significant coverage of her doing/contributing to something
87:
82:
91:
563:
490:
462:
433:
312:
296:
262:
231:
74:
334:
The ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject provided in the article establish notability. Article needs expansion, not deletion.
558:
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. --
48:. There is consensus here that the third party coverage establishes the notability of this topic. Closing without prejudice against a merge.
559:
486:
458:
429:
308:
292:
258:
227:
428:
No
Knowledge rule calls for any such thing. Only significant coverage of her. The obituary already provides her claim to notability. --
168:
135:
17:
257:
Knowledge requires a claim of notability, which is philanthropist. And it requires reliable sources. Both are covered. --
610:
129:
639:
615:
591:
567:
547:
508:
494:
480:
466:
451:
437:
417:
392:
374:
343:
316:
300:
285:
266:
252:
235:
215:
198:
189:. There was no media coverage apart from these death-related Times articles, nothing upon which to build an article.--
78:
56:
125:
654:
36:
653:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
175:
602:
635:
533:
70:
62:
383:
No
Knowledge rule calls for any such thing. having a NYT obituary does not grant automatic WP article.
281:
248:
194:
141:
161:
625:
339:
211:
631:
588:
504:
476:
447:
413:
388:
307:
Can you give examples of non-notable people with non-paid obituaries in the New York Times. --
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
352:
277:
244:
190:
543:
49:
335:
273:
207:
186:
583:
500:
472:
443:
442:
again that is purely your opinion. AfDs attempt to obtain consensus on notability.
409:
384:
108:
536:- (Page 345), and was listed three times in the Dictionary of American biography
405:
539:
471:
Richard, one individual user is not the arbiter of notability on WP.
647:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
351:
As above. If the New York Times said she was notable, she is.
206:- a stub, and non notable as above. Basically clutter. --
485:
I assume you are referring to yourself, yes, I agree. --
104:
100:
96:
160:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
657:). No further edits should be made to this page.
532:She also has an entry in the Yearbook of the
174:
8:
623:. Obituaries in major publications such as
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
560:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
487:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
459:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
430:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
309:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
293:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
259:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
228:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
452:23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
438:06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
418:03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
393:23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
375:23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
344:22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
317:00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
301:20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
286:20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
267:19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
253:19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
236:19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
216:18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
199:15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
640:21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
616:20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
592:18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
568:15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
548:15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
509:00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
495:00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
481:00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
467:00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
57:07:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
674:
650:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
534:Encyclopedia Americana
71:Virginia Henry Curtiss
63:Virginia Henry Curtiss
499:no definitely you.
626:The New York Times
590:
44:The result was
582:
665:
652:
613:
609:
605:
586:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
179:
178:
164:
112:
94:
54:
53:
34:
673:
672:
668:
667:
666:
664:
663:
662:
661:
655:deletion review
648:
611:
607:
603:
584:
579:Keep and expand
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
121:
85:
69:
66:
51:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
671:
669:
660:
659:
643:
642:
618:
595:
594:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
551:
550:
531:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
454:
421:
420:
398:
397:
396:
395:
378:
377:
346:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
255:
239:
238:
182:
181:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
670:
658:
656:
651:
645:
644:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
622:
619:
617:
614:
606:
600:
597:
596:
593:
589:
587:
580:
577:
576:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
538:
535:
529:
526:
525:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
455:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
372:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
254:
250:
246:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
224:
221:
220:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
649:
646:
632:Phil Bridger
624:
620:
598:
578:
527:
401:
353:
348:
331:
222:
203:
202:
183:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
243:correct. --
148:free images
278:JohnnyB256
245:JohnnyB256
191:JohnnyB256
52:Skomorokh
218:MelanieN
336:Alansohn
272:meeting
208:MelanieN
115:View log
612:Windows
585:Cocytus
501:LibStar
473:LibStar
444:LibStar
410:LibStar
406:notable
385:LibStar
154:WP refs
142:scholar
88:protect
83:history
604:Fences
599:Delete
402:Delete
274:WP:BIO
204:Delete
187:WP:BIO
126:Google
92:delete
608:&
370:Focus
169:JSTOR
130:books
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
636:talk
621:Keep
564:talk
544:talk
540:Ikip
528:Keep
505:talk
491:talk
477:talk
463:talk
448:talk
434:talk
414:talk
389:talk
349:Keep
340:talk
332:Keep
313:talk
297:talk
282:talk
276:. --
263:talk
249:talk
232:talk
223:Keep
212:talk
195:talk
162:FENS
136:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
176:TWL
113:– (
638:)
566:)
546:)
507:)
493:)
479:)
465:)
457:--
450:)
436:)
416:)
408:.
391:)
342:)
315:)
299:)
291:--
284:)
265:)
251:)
234:)
226:--
214:)
197:)
156:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
634:(
562:(
542:(
503:(
489:(
475:(
461:(
446:(
432:(
412:(
387:(
367:m
364:a
361:e
358:r
355:D
338:(
311:(
295:(
280:(
261:(
247:(
230:(
210:(
193:(
180:)
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
120:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.